is wrapping up other business. this is live coverage on c-span2 your. >> a reminder for all the heavy engineering and the high-tech industry in the north sea. it's at the heart of people's business and family and friends of victims and those that travel every week offshore need to be reassured they are always being done to ensure their safety. will he meet with us to see what can be done to ensure that the lessons learned from these tragedies are learned quickly so the people can be reassured safety operations the? >> i would say to my honorable friend that he like many others on both sides of this house have from in years campaigned on safety issues in the north sea and we are committed to the highest possible standards. of course, we want to see what the lessons are that are learned from this tragedy, make sure those are shared with the whole industry across the whole of the north sea and beyond.

>> order. questions to the prime minister. >> question number one, mr. speaker. >> prime minister? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today marks the 12 members of the tragic terrorist attack on new york's twin towers. i'm sure the whole house will wish to join in sending our condolences to all those who are affected by this aborted attack including the families of the 67 british citizens who lost their lives. these terrorists seek to divide us but they don't understand their actions only make us more determined and more united in our resolve to defeat them. mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> i'm sure the whole house will wish to associate himself with the prime minister's comments on this anniversary. we ar are haunted of its imagesy see. millions needing a day, children

dying. i thank the prime minister for his leadership at the g20. will he now prepare a concrete plan and what steps will he take to gain international support prior to the united nations general assembly later this month? >> i think she is right to raise this issue. sure you becomes a refugee every 15 seconds. inside syria there are 6.8 million people i in need of the american assistance and, of course, the u.n. appeal is only 44% prescribed as a shortage of money. we do have a plan between now and the u.n. general assembly to encourage other countries to come forward as we've done with money the money but also to back up her campaign to make sure that proper access and that means including priority humanitarian routes into the country, cutting bureaucracy, and, of course, humanitarian causes and conflicts of the eight can get through and she will have our backing and getting others to support that including potentially a u.n.

security council resolution. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, i joined the prime minister and remembering the terrible events of september 11, 2001. especially all the british citizens who died on that day. the mindless cruelty of that attack must never be forgotten. and today our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who died. mr. speaker, two days fall in unemployment is welcome. [shouting] >> but does he recognize the concern that unemployment is still rising among young people and is close to a million? and the number of people up and working part time but can't find a full-time job is at record level? >> can i thank the gentleman for what he said about this anniversary of those dreadful events in new york, and can i also thank him for the welcome

to the fall in unemployment. and let me say very clearly, of course is welcome when unemployment falls but we've still got a long way to go. as the chancellor said were turning a corner but we need to build this recovery, we've got to go on backing businesses, dealing with our debt, there must be no complacency as we do everything we can to make sure this recovery delivers for hard-working people. now, let me share with them the unemployment figures and for the houses benefit as well. it is good that employment is up another 80,000 this quarter, unemployment down 24,000, and the claimant count down 32000 just this month. so unemployment is now north than the general election and a number of new net private sector jobs which we speak but as being 1.3 million is now 1.4 million, which is very welcomed. he's right to raise youth unemployment. we do need to do more to get young people back to work. in terms of the use claimant count it is down by 10,900 this

month so there's some good news but we need to build on our work on apprenticeship, build on a work with work experience, make sure the youth contract delivers come make sure children are learning the key skills in school and health division people into work. >> mr. speaker, he mentioned the chance of speech. the chancellor went out and said he had saved the economy. total complacency and total hubris. at a time when even today unemployment is rising in half of the country. in easin the east of england, te northeast, northwest, yorkshire, the west midlands and scotland. it was the chancellor who chose off the recovery and now wants to claim victory. and mr. speaker, its people's living standards continue to fall, can be prime minister confirm the wages are not around 1500 pounds lower than when he came to power? >> let me just remind them what

the chancellor said because is perfectly legitimate to point out the party opposite told us there would be no growth without plan b. well, we have growth. they told us unemployment would go up and not down. they told us the growth of private sector jobs would never make up for the loss of private sector jobs. they have been wrong on every single one of these issues. now, of course, we need to do more to help with living standards, but the only way you can help with living standards sustainably is to deliver growth in the economy, and we are, ma to keep interest rates and mortgage rates low, and we are, and to cut people's taxes by raising the personal allowance. all the things this government has done, things his government would never do. >> mr. speaker, once again we see from the prime minister as we did from the chancellor totan it's the slowest come we are in the midst of the slowest recovery in 100 years, mr. speaker. now let's talk about his record.

can he tell us out of the 39 months that he's been prime minister, how many months have prices been rising faster than wages and living standards fall in? >> as i said, we face a challenge to help people with living standards, but because this government has taken 2 million people out of tax and death cut income tax or 25 million working people, actually household disposable income, went up last year. that's what's happening. but as i said right at the beginning we have to build on this. we've got to keep going with even with the deficit, helping business to employ people. but he talks about policy. let me just remind him what the former chancellor said. the former chancellor said this, i'm waiting to hear what we've got to say on the economy. that is the verdict of the former chancellor. i've to say, traded we're all waiting to hear from a single constructive objection from the

party opposite. >> mr. speaker, the whole house and the country will have heard the prime minister unable to answer the question about what is -- let me give them the answer. the answer is that for 38 out of 39 months that he has been prime minister, living standards for working people have gone down, not out. now, can he confirm that the only month when rages -- wages rose faster than prices, when handed out city bonuses, calm down, hang on a second. and when city bonuses went up 82%? >> his speech is so porous was so yesterday it's difficult to know when he is finished. [laughter] [shouting] >> the truth is -- >> calm down. this will take longer otherwise.

mr. prime minister. >> he completely bottled it. that is the truth, mr. speaker. the fact is this economy business confidence is up at, consumer confidence is up, exports are up, and yes, of course the point would make about bonuses is when he was hitting in the treasury they were four times higher. and under this government a top rate of tax will be higher than any year when he or the shadow chancellor sat down with the last disastrous labour government. that is the truth of it. this government is making good the mess he made of government. >> he cannot answer the question on living standards because he knows that the truth is people are worse off under this government. and here's the reality. they want to give maxim support to millionaires who are getting bonuses, so they give them a tax cut. but it's a different story for those who go to food banks. and we know what this government

thinks about those who go to food banks because the children's secretary said the people who go to food banks only have themselves -- one of the honorable members is growing. edgy shows how out of touch this conservative party is. [shouting] now, we would all like to hear, does the prime minister agree with his children's secretary? >> food bank use went up 10 times under labour so we don't have to take any lectures from them. and while were on the issue of complacency, let me tell them, real complacency is going back to tax-and-spend and borrowing through the roof. real complacency is promising no more boom and bust. real complacency is thinking you can win an election when we learned this week they've got no economic policy, no foreign policy, and no leadership either. he promised us a blank sheet of paper three years in. i think we can agree he has delivered.

[shouting] >> mr. speaker, the prime minister didn't defend this children's secretary. it is a disgrace. mr. speaker, let's say in of them tried live on 150 pounds a week. then we'll see what happens. with 1 million young people out of work, unemployment up in have the country, millions worse on what millionaires get a tax cut or the few not the many he is the to nation prime minister. >> it is this education secretary there's delivering the results we need in our education, preschools, academy, rigor in our school and he should be praising them. i tell him what a disgrace is, and that is going down and caving into the trade union. we were promised this great big fight, this great big speech. he told us it would be raging bull, he gave us chicken run.

[laughter] [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. my right honorable friend and the government have been working hard to attract investment with considerable success. these efforts could be undermined by further delays to the application to determine the application but able uk. could i urge the prime minister to respond to requests from the leader to intervene to ensure an early determination of the application well before the december deadline? >> i've spoken to my honorable friend and his colleagues on a number of occasions about this very important investment. we all want to see it become a real magnet for investment, particularly green energy investment. i'm very happy to look at the issue he is raise with me and raise with me before and very happy to look particularly at

the issue of the planning commission with of course the responsible council. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i think the parents of the 1 million young unemployed people will think the prime minister totally out of touch. this year, the number of young people with jobs has dropped by 77,000 the government contractors reaches fewer than one-tenth of the young people it was supposed to help. doesn't the prime minister understand that not everybody wants their first job with help from the royal and cori? >> i would say to the honorable lady she should welcome the fact that the number of young people who are going out of work benefits has fallen by 10,900 this month. that's what's happening. 100,000 young people accessing work experience, many of them getting off work. it is too intense for cost-effective in the future jobs fund that she has avoided.

that's what's happening on our economy but as i said there's no complacency. more needs to be done to get young people into work. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week, despite enough evidence to prosecute they chose not to proceed and prosecute doctors offering to abort a baby because it was a female. and does the prime minister agree with me this is very uncomfortable that affect the 67 act is now almost up and puts the policy on the path with india and china and the female fetus in the world today is more affordable than she was last week? >> i think she is right to raise this, and let's be clear that abortions on the basis of a child's sex are wrong and illegal in our country. and i think "the daily telegraph is to be committed for the campaign and the work they've done to highlight this important case. but in our country we get into

the prosecuting authorities. it's very important that they look at the evidence and they make a decision on the basis of likely that getting a conviction and the public interest in making a case and taking it to court. that has to work in the country but i share her concern about what we read and what is happening and it is right the professional action should be considered as well. >> on sunday i joined the whales, walk on wales army veterans of the 8-under seven-mile tour of wales. walk on wales is a charity campaign to raise awareness for the comrades suffer from mental illness provided been great progress over the last 10 years, can the prime minister assure the house that he is redoubling its efforts to ensure that the nhs has access to army records so we can get the best possible service and treatment to our brave comrades? will he join me in congratulating and wishing

success walk on wales a? >> iceland congratulate walk on west for the work and also commend him for his efforts in his own constituency, a beautiful and to walk around to it is important that we put money into veterans charities as we're doing using the libor funds to support many causes including mental health causes. but as he says it's important the national health service respond properly to these demands, the particular points about army records, i will look into them and write them about that specific issue. >> gordon birtwistle. >> mr. speaker, after years of decline, manufacturing is now leading this country of the financial mess left by the previous government. [shouting] >> can i -- cannot compliment by right honorable friend do not implement plan b, suggested by the party opposite, and ask him

to continue to support our outstanding manufacturing bid, particularly and my constitution and across the northwest? >> i certainly join the honorable gentleman but he's absolutely right to say that the news on manufacturing is good. all 13 of the manufacturing sectors have increased, and that's the first time that's happened since 1990 day. and, of course, the party opposite doesn't like hearing this good news, including the news that, of course, jaguar land rover made an announcement about 1700 new jobs in this week. so we will go on backing british business, backing exports, backing manufacturing and major we make this a sustained recovery that works for hard-working people. >> [inaudible] so many people struggle -- >> city bonuses are actually 86% lower than they were when she was supporting the less

government. let me just point out to the honorable lady, because our policy and very close. she tweeted this morning that shared a question to the prime minister and she asked for suggestions. the first suggestion came back because of all these things very close as you know, mr. speaker. [laughter] the first suggestion was this, how happy are you that the leader of the labour party will still be in place come the next election? [laughter] [shouting] >> why rejected that advice and take advice from the shadow chancellor, i can't think. [laughter] >> unemployment has gone up 600 today we learn under this government three times as many jobs have been created in the private sector as had been lost in the public sector. does the prime minister believe this is a complete fantasy as suggested by the shadow

chancellor and? chancellor? >> i think the honorable lady makes it very important point, because what we have seen is the growth of the private sector jobs far outstripping by three times as she says, more than three times in some cases, outstripping the decline in public sector jobs. this was one of the predictions made by the party opposite. they said it's a fantasy to suggest that could happen. they said they would be no growth without plan b. they predicted rises in unemployment. they have been wrong on every major economic judgment. >> i'm grateful, mr. speaker. i also asked my constituents what i should ask the prime minister today, and i should say that far away come many people are concerned about wages and prices, when prices outstrip wages. is not the case under this prime minister working people are poor than they were when he came to government? >> the point is this, when prices outstrip wages it is really important to cut people's taxes and that's what we have done by delivering a tax cut to

25 million working people. lifting the personal allowance, giving people a 700-pound tax cut. we've only been able to do that because we have taken tough decisions on spending, tough decisions on welfare, tough decision on the deficit, tough decisions that he has wrongly rejected. >> when the party opposite left government there were 770 young people in my constituency out of work. today, there are just 585, and we now have, and we now have westfield proposing when i have billion pounds -- [inaudible] with the prime minister meet with me to discuss how the government can help with infrastructure improvement that will end this scourge that we inherited from the last government? >> my honorable friend makes an important point of course we still have more work to do to get young people into work, but overall 1.4 million more people

employed in the private sector, record levels in our history of women employment, employing the number of people in work almost up by 1 million since the election. unemployment lower than at election. long-term unemployment down on a year ago. we still have more work to do but we're heading in the right direction. we've got to keep on track and keep working to help business to take people on. >> mr. speaker, can be prime minister tell us why people with mental illnesses are being kept in police cells? >> well, we are making efforts to try to bring that to an end by been working between the nhs and the police. is a been a long-standing problem under governmengovernmen ts of all colors for very long time, but we're having this discussion to try to make good progress. >> mr. speaker, in may 2010, youth unemployment was at 7.4%. now it stands at 3.8%.

on the 27th of september, i'm holding a jobs there. does the prime minister think that such events is something all right honorable members can do to help us turn the corner further? >> i congratulate businesses in crawley and the right angle jumping for helping encourage this private sector led recovery where we're se me into work. we're also sing the number of young not in education and training, that number is at its lowest for a decade but as i said, there's no complacency. there's more work that needs to be done to make sure this recovery delivers for people who work hard and do the right thi thing. >> in april last you i asked the prime minister about the thousands of people heading for banks and to supply the suggested a shocking complacency. will he answer the question,

does he think the half a million people visiting food banks to simply needs to -- [inaudible] or will he admit they can't afford to feed their families because of his government? >> the point i would make is that we should work with and thank the food bank movement for the actual work that they do. we should recognize that the use of food banks went up 10 times under labour. one of the reasons it's increase under this government is because we took the block that her party put in place that was preventing job centers from referring people to food banks. they didn't do it because it was bad pr. welcome this government is interested in doing the right thing rather than just something that just looks good. >> mr. speaker, may i ask the prime minister if national standards or sales and marketing practice in this country are strong enough to protect against false advertising? apparently yesterday a man advertise himself he was made is due only to collapse entirely within seconds.

[laughter] spent i think my honorable friend makes a good point. i admire everything that happens there but i think they need to look at their trading stance because i have to say, he folded faster than a deck chair. >> the chancellor blames figures on crisis for the problems in the uk economy. but yet since 2010, railways through france and germany, britain -- will the prime minister finally take responsibility for the isis -- [inaudible]? >> as i've said many times, times are tough because we are recovering from the calamitous situation left by the party opposite. and if he wants to make comparison with your some countries, you see that we have a much lower unemployment rate than many of them. there are no other european

countries that can boast a record of one point for million new private-sector jobs. and the best way to a people's living standard, the best way how people out of poverty is to help them into work. i would've thought the labour party would understand that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on monday, we voted for coordinated strike action this autumn. what effect does the prime minister think this will have on our economy and the lives of hard-working people? >> i think the document produced by the unite union which still sponsors and basically control so many of the members opposite is frankly a very frightening document because it is train union leaders not ordinary trade unions are doing this, it is trade union leaders that want to damage our country can want to damage our economy and are playing politics with our future. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

jarrell was a bright 19 you with everything to live for whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong thing. yet, two months after his brutal murder, the only contact the greek authorities had with his family is to send him the clothes he was wearing that night. will be prime minister meet with me and his grieving mother to see a we can get justice for him a? >> i'm very happy to hold that meeting but i think it is really important that we do everything we can to help families that are put in this position. to be fair to her counselor services around the world, they do coke i think extremely well. they tried to go the extra mile. they work very hard, and another foreign office encourages all that they do but there are cases where things don't work out in the way that they should and where we struggle to get answers from other countries about their justice systems and what's happening and i'm very happy told the meeting that she speaks about. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

tragically, john gray infants it school, one of the largest infant schools sadly burned down a few days ago. with the prime minister join me in thanking the council for the speed which they found alternative accommodation for the children and giving the encouraging news the school will be rebuilt as soon as possible? >> i certainly joined in praising his county councils but it sounds like a tragic event and it comes on top of, the fact that everybody knows that we need to provide more primary school places like commend them for their quick action. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister, since the government took office, the uk has suffered the second biggest fall in wages in any of the g20 countries. do you think this is evident you saved our economy? >> as i have said several times, this question time, if we want to see living standards recover properly, and they do, there's only one sustainable way to make

that happen, a growing economy keeping on top of inflation, making sure mortgage rates are kept low and then cutting people's taxes by raising the personal allowance. that is how you help households with their disposal income. let me make this point. if we listened to labour and that more spending, more borrowing, more debt, the first thing that would go up with the interest rates and mortgage rates. and for all the talk of the cost the family faces can be increase in mortgage rates would wipe out all of the hard work that we are done. the shadow chancellor says you wait. we are waiting for one single sentinel suggestion from a partners from bench has got a comprehensively wrong in the last three years. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as chair of the all party -- i'm pleased the leading a delegation as part of our report in to the collapse. may i think this is for the rapid response in this matter and often does place the way

quickly join me in contributing -- to ensure that their ethically trade and make sure other people are not exploited for our market speak with first volcanic and graduate the honorable lady for the work that she does to further relations between britain and bangladesh? can i thank her for reference to david who works at some hard with the country but i think she's right to draw attention to the appalling industrial accident and to encourage companies to check their supply chains and to check whether it they are poshard coming from. i wish you well with the work she's doing with bangladesh. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister think that amt crisis anything to do with the fact that he is cut over 5000 nurses since the german election? and figures -- [inaudible] >> the point is that since the election were protected health spending and we putting an extra 12.7 billion pounds into our

nhs, the number of clinical staff including doctors in our hospitals has gone up, whereas the number of managers has gone down. under labour things were heading in an entirely different direction. >> successive governments have condemned ethnic cleansing. will be prime minister today condemn israel for ethnic cleansing of 40,000? >> this government has a very clear policy on the issue of israel and on issue of settlements. we respect and welcome is right to exist and we defend that. but on settlements we think that the israeli approach is wrong and we condemn the settlement activity and we've been consistent in saying that, both privately and publicly. >> does the prime minister david, mr. speaker, that if it were not for this house of commons, -- britain and the

united states would already be in the midst of what has turned out would have been a wholly unnecessary war? isn't this an indication of parliament and a vindication of mr. churchill's work that -- [inaudible] spend what it is a vindication of is determination to stand up to chemical weapons used. we would not be in this situation of pursuing new avenues of getting syrian chemical weapons out of syria and destroyed unless a strong start had been taken. that is the right answer, not crawling up to dictators and telling them how wonderful they are. [shouting] >> order. personal statements. >> here on c-span2 we will leave the bridge house of commons now as they move onto other

legislative business. you have been watching prime ashes question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern of parliameparliame nt is in session. you can see this week's question time again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's question, plus link the international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video including programs even with other international issues. >> fifteen days ago booktv managed its debut on c-span2. spent love, death and money, these are the three main human concerned that we are all keen students of law. we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and in practice. maybe not quite as much as ken starr is but fascinated. >> and since then we've brought you the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, with 9000

authors have appeared on the booktv. including presidents. >> i wanted to give the reader a chance to understand the process by which i made decisions. the environment in which i made decisions, the people i listen to at -- as a made decisions. and this is not an attempt to rewrite history. it's not an attempt to fashion a legacy. it is an attempt to be a part of the historical narrative. >> also, supreme court justices. >> every single justice on the court has a passion and love for the constitution, and our country, that's equal to mine. then you know that if you accept that as an operating truth, which is, you understand that you can disagree. >> and nobel prize winners. >> that for me what's

interesting is negotiation of a moral position. do no harm, love somebody, and respect yourself. all of that is reduced, simplified notions, the philosophers have spent their lifetimes trying to imagine what it is like to live a moral life, what morality is, what existence is, what responsibility is. >> we visited book fairs and festivals around the country. >> booktv is live at the annual "l.a. times" festival of books on the campus of ucla in west los angeles. >> our signature programming them in depth each month. >> if you say to a child almost anywhere in this country, i've been to schools all over the country, more than 600, once upon a time, the child will stop and pause. now you better cash a check. you better have more to say after that. but that phrase is still magical. and every week, "after words."

>> my father will come his job had been to the press attaché in belgrade. my mother wanted me to be born in prague where her mother was, and so i was born in prague and then we went back to belgrade and my father was recalled in 1938 and he was in czechoslovakia when the nazis marched in on march 15, 1939. >> since 1998, booktv has shown over 40,000 hours of programming and it's the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books every weekend. throughout the fall we arm marking 15 years of booktv on c-span2. >> the house judiciary subcommittee on the court intellectual property and internet held a hearing yesterday on the laws governing copyrighted content on satellite television. executives from the dish network, the nielsen company and

intellectual property and telecommute nation's attorneys were among the witnesses. this is to have ours. >> -- two and a half hours. >> i think we're ready to go. good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate the witnesses up presents the. we welcome you to the subcommittee hearing on satellite television laws contained in title 17 of the u.s. code. not unlike other issues before congress, the circumstances surrounding disputes over our satellite television laws are exceedingly complicated and

important to every congressional district. when it comes to video i believe at some point at which we can all agree. americans love to watch television and want to have as many choices as available at the lowest possible price. this committee has created three compulsory license is to make content more available. while in some instances these licenses have served consumers and stakeholders efficiently and effectively. i believe it's safe to say that the compulsory licenses are not without shortcomings. the classic example is when a local sports competition or a popular show is suddenly unavailable. you go home looking forward to seeing that particular show involved and are unable to get it. you're likely to turn off the television, and call someone to complain. i think that's a natural result. regardless of one's perspective a member of congress has on licensing issues, which all learned one truth, our

constituents are not shy about ntellthat are problems in the marketplace that them of their favorite shows. as we begin to review, as we begin this review of the satellite licenses, one of our goals will be to find a solution to situations where the laws tend to benefit one party over the other. throughout this discussion, our top award will be to protect the interests of consumers. when there's a dispute and the result of blackout, consumers are left with no recourse. again, this is an extremely complex area of copyright law, and i'm pleased by our highly qualified panel of witnesses who are participating in today's hearing. i'm now pleased to recommend the distinction taliban from north carolina, the ranking member, mel watt, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and today is the first of what i suspect will be a series of

hearings to consider the reauthorization of satellite television extension and localism act, or what we call s.t.e.l.a., which among other things extended the 119 license through december 31, 2014. enacted in 1988, the satellite home viewer act created a copyright compulsory license for the benefit of the satellite industry to retransmit distant television signals to its subscribers. the license codified in section 119 of the copyright act was originally intended to ensure the availability of broadcast programming the satellite providers and to foster competition with the cable industry which has enjoyed a permanent compulsory license to retransmit copyrighted content contained in both local and

distant broadcast television signals since passage of the copyright act of 1976. the intent of providing compulsory copyright license ing compulsory copyright licenses was to facilitate investment in new creative works by the satellite and cable industries, by eliminating direct negotiation with the copyright owners for the use of distant signal programming. through the 119 compulsory license, although 119 compulsory license is temporary and, therefore, the focus of the reauthorization, we will be considering, it is part of a complex statutory and regulatory framework governing cable and satellite retransmission of broadcast signals making it virtually impossible to consider

whether to reauthorize the provision in a vacuum. for that reason the committee on energy and commerce, which has jurisdiction over tv regulation and statutory provisions that govern the broadcast market, have held multiple hearings in this congress on whether to repeal, revise, or reauthorize s.t.e.l.a. four years ago under the leadership of chairman conyers, the judiciary committee also grappled with a number of issues that have emerged in the marketplace in an effort to simple five and modernize what was largely perceived as an anachronistic regime for the provision of broadcast program. most immediate we addressed from analog to digital television. of the issues the committee

considered at that time remain unresolved while new technologies have further disrupted with innovations that we couldn't foresee less than a decade ago. i believe we have a unique opportunity to tackle some of the big issues that will define the future of video. compulsory licenses, i think, everyone will admit represent a departure from free market negotiations, and are usually the last resort in the event of market failure. when the compulsory licenses were first enacted, the cable and satellite industries were in their embryonic stages. today, however, it is estimated that over 90% of american households subscribe to a pay-tv

service. so there are a myriad of issues that may be relevant for consideration. for example, these licenses still necessary to foster competition, or should they be phased out as the copyright office and others have recommended? how many consumers truly benefit from these licenses? on the other hand, is the current overlapping web of community asian's and copyright policy's functioning in a way that meets the goals of national media policy? it cannot be denied or disregarded that marketplace incumbents including broadcasters, cable and satellite providers, and content creators, have entrenched interest and investment in a complex framework created by law.

would and abrupt dismantling of this structure be unfair to those industries and harmful to consumers? can current law keep pace with new technologies that seek to exploit ambiguities in the legal framework, for example, what constitutes a public performance for retransmission consent purposes? recently, the cbs time warner cable retransmission consensus resulted in a temporary blackout for some consumers. is that dispute evidence of a broken system, or does reflect a robust free market? also, how should we address, or should we addressed, the nascent online figure distribution models that come in the future, may very well displace the traditional distribution methods altogether?

are these internet-based video distribution models the new kids on the block entitled to comparable statutory impose rights, obligations, and prohibitions? or is the time for government intervention over? these are only a few of the broad policy questions that i think are relevant in this space. i believe that we must determine whether the current regime is working to ensure that content providers and distributors, old and new, are appropriately compensated and incentivized in a way that provides a competitive environment for american consumers. we have an impressive and diverse group of expert witnesses today with very different views on how the marketplace works and how it has developed since s.t.e.l.a., and most probably what the rules of the road should be moving

forward. i look forward to the testimony today, and to continuing this dialogue in the future. and mr. chairman, i yield back, and thank you for the time spent i thank the gentleman for his opening statement. the chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from virginia, bob goodlatte for his opening statement. thank you, mr. chairman but i pressured you only think another four to the the testament of the windows. >> for decades, the vast majority of americans have relied upon satellite and cable services for access to a wide variety of video content, ranging from nighttime entertainment for their families; educational shows for their children; local and national news with information that informs them; and public access channels that empower americans to see their local, state, and federal representatives in action. as the number of channels and sources of video content continue to increase, a growing number of americans now subscribe to additional services such as redbox, amazon, and hulu, some of which create their own content. americans are embracing these

additional services to such a degree that society has coined two new terms, cord-shavers and cord-cutters, for those who are reducing or eliminating traditional video subscriptions. according to the fcc's latest competition report, in addition to free over-the-air broadcast content, 100% of americans have access to two satellite services, 98% have access to these two satellite services and one local alternative, and 35% have access to two satellite services and two local alternatives. marketplace competition has grown significantly since the last major committee activity in this area in 2010 when congress enacted the satellite television extension and localism act. there are three compulsory licenses in title 17 impacting this industry, one of which expires at the end of 2014. this committee will consider

over the next year whether a reauthorization of this compulsory license is warranted. however, as the written testimony submitted for this hearing demonstrates, some interested parties are advocating for congress to undertake more than a simple reauthorization and look at other matters surrounding the video marketplace and competition policies that appear to have become more prominent recently. one core factor that this committee will weigh as we consider these important issues is ensuring that copyright owners maintain the right to distribute their intellectual property as they choose. this committee has traditionally disfavored compulsory licenses although there are three in effect today in this marketplace. another core factor we will weigh is ensuring competition in the marketplace. consumers and intermediaries benefit where there is robust competition. as the committee of jurisdiction for competition policy, efforts that involve competition issues deserve this committee's oversight and ongoing attention. the written testimony of the

witnesses here this morning highlights the importance of both issues to the video marketplace. as this committee continues its oversight and legislative activities in this area, i look forward to hearing from all interested parties about their perspectives and concerns. and i thank the chairman and yield but spent i think you, chairman goodlatte. the chair recognizes distinguished gentleman from michigan, the ranking member on the committee for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. the satellite television extension and localism act is full of options that we have witnesses to distinguish. i want to thank the chairman for keeping the witness list down to seven. i understand we ran out of tables.

we weren't able to put on any more people than are here. i want to consider these options, and i look forward to the witness' testimony. two considerations. one about copyright owners, and the other about consumers. we must protect copyright owners because it's their property that forms the basis of the entire scheme. compulsory licenses are generally not -- because they distort the marketplace and result in below market rates being paid to content owners. second, we must enact policies that protect consumers and

safeguard competition. consumers benefit from increased competition because more competition usually produces lower prices. and copyright owners should not benefit financially from retransmission consent agreements, which is at the heart of these disputes, despite the fact that the signal only has worth because of the programming contained on the signal. and so i think we must focus on principles of localism, people who subscribe to cable or satellite television have so many options, there's never a shortage of something to watch. but even with all these choices, people still highly valued their

local news, their local sports, and need local channels to deliver community service and emergency information. localism and the traditional networks affiliate relationships also benefits copyright owners by allowing their programming to be publicly performed in every market across the country. now, i conclude by observing that there will be circumstanc circumstances, principles will conflict. i look forward to working to ensure that the public interest can best be served through satellite carriage of broadcast television signal, and i thank the chairman for allowing me to make this brief remarks spent appreciate that. as i said can we have reducing which panel before us today, and

i will begin by swearing in the witnesses. gentlemen, if you would please rise. [witnesses were sworn in] >> let the record show that all witnesses concur with that. and i will not introduce our panel. we appreciate everyone in attendance at is the important hearing. first witness today is mr. paul donato, executive vice pre and chief research officer at the nielsen company. is responsible for overseeing the development and evalon servg as nielsen's liaison to his clients and industry associations. he received his ba psychology and sociology at the state university new york at stony brook. our second when this is mr. stanton dodge, executive vice president, general counsel and secretary for dish network. he is responsibresponsib le for all legal and government affairs for dish and its subsidiaries. he received his bs in accounting

from the university of vermont. third witness is mr. gerald waldron, partner at arnold and porter. he has spent more than 25 years in public policy, has practice focusing on communication and technology. mr. walberg received his ba degree from university of virginia. chairman goodlatte has not permission and it is our next witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's my pleasure to welcome our for the witness and my constituent, mr. earle mackenzie, executive vice president and chief operating officer of shentel cable testimony on behalf of the american cable association. with 35 years of telecom experience, he is response before shentel's day operations of its many subsidiaries. is received his ba in accounting from the college of william and mary. welcome. were glad to have your testimony here today as well. >> our next witness, this witness today is mr. james campbell, vice president for

public policy at centurylink. mr. campbell is responsible for the companies regulatory and legislative affairs and is received his bachelor's degree from santa clara university. are six witness is mr. robert here, partner at arnold and porter will testify today on behalf of major league baseball. mr. garrett join arnold and porter in 1977 and the service outside counsel to major league baseball on copyright and telecom issues for more than 35 years. mr. garrett attended the northwestern university. our seventh and final witness is mr. preston padden it was testimony on his own behalf today. with extensive career in the video this is a service former president of abc teormer president of abc television network and former executive vice president of the walt disney company. he received his ba from the university of maryland. welcome you all come and we will start with, mr. donato, you will be the leadoff hitter today. gentlemen, as is obvious to all

come with seven witnesses. this could take a long time. we try to apply the five minute rule. there was a panel before you. when the green light turns to amber, that is your signal that the time is running. the clock is running up a couple minutes ago. so at that point would appreciate a good sort of rapid a. we will try to apply the five minute rule to us as well. so if you will respond tersely to our questions that would be helpful as well. so mr. donato, why don't you start off? >> good morning. my name is paul donato and an executive vice president and chief executive officer for nielsen to i think the opportunity join today spend to discuss nielsen's designate market era, commenting on -- there will and satellite transmission statutes such as still -- s.t.e.l.a.

over the years for nielsen has developed innovative technologies allowing us to expand to computers, tablets and smart phones. and how consumers utilize social and how consumers utilize social media. our reports are robert light on my range of public and private sector stakeholders to facilitate business transactions to engage consumer trends. nielsens reports are you by the federal government to define markets and satellite television statutes. most discussions at still and its predecessors begin with a conversation about nielsens dna. that will be the focus of my testimony today. the designated market share a

predominance of viewing, broadcast stations, license to operate within a given standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by the omb. predominate or dominance of doing defined here will indicate that for a particular county, homes make you broadcast stations licensed operate from different but generally nearby metro areas. we start with the metro area such as new york or los angeles and continue on through the 201 dna markets in the united states. each march using tuning data collected from nielsen homes over the last year, existing region are tested to verify the dominant share of viewing from each county continues to be from broadcast stations licensed to operate from within a single metro. all of some surveys on tuning between 6 a.m. and 2 a.m., sunday through saturday.

while this is the basic premise behind the dna, there are rules which meals and exercise when it appears that predominance of viewing may be shifting. these rules try to balance the need for stability and television markets. but at the same time the need to ensure that count is our scientific dna are unit are some of the highest share of broadcast occurs. if a larger share from a county shift from its current dna a summit to broadcast stations from another ema, that shift must be statistically significant and occur for two consecutive years. nielsen institute assistant in the mid 1960s to measure the number of viewers any particular area and more specifically to connect sellers and buyers of advertising. it allowed for the creation of a market where buyers and sellers of local television advertising could do business with each other based on impartial, information provided by a third party. advertisers need to know that their absurd directed at audiences they want to serve. the tv advertising bureau

estimates that in q1 of this year, ad spending in the us was almost $18 billion. with an estimate of $72 billion for the prior year. that's a market that fuels great entertainment and news programs this country produces and watch us. with the emergence of cable and satellite television in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the landscape changed. .. could are carried in which local markets. as part of that process nielsen

designated market areas were adopted as guideline for determining which local stations could be carried. it should be noted nielsen did not recommend the use of dma for this purpose, nor were we asked tore technical assistance on use of dmas. it was a decision made entirelily congress. finally as you work to learn more about future trend in video use we would be happy to assist you any way we can. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you and we look forward to your questions. >> mr. donato, congratulations. you beat the illumination of the red light. pressure on you, mr. dodge. needless to say your entire statement will be made part of the record. mr. dodge. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte. ranking member conyers and ranking member watt, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i'm stan dodge, the general counsel of dish network. we are the nation's third largest pay tv provider and

25,000 employees. we're only provider of television in 210 local dmas. that consumers can use to up greater choice and control over their viewing experience. dish pays billions of dollars a year for the right to distribute programing to our subscribers and fully supports fair compensation to copyright holders. as a subcommittee examines the video marketplace we believe outdated laws need to be updated comprehensively to reflect changes in the market and changes how consumers view their content. public policy should support the preservation and expansion of consumer video choices. unfortunately, as distributors like dish offer advanced in technology, some programmers are again crying wolf. saying this time the threat is real and they won't be abe to survive the onslaught of innovation. the challenges to our hopper dvr are a perfect example. we believe in consumer choice and to preserve and expand i want to make three points.

first we believe congress should protect consumers of a growing problem of blackouts caused by retransmission disputes. in 2012 the number soared to almost 100. the pace has yet to level off. so far in 2013 we had 84 blackouts which puts us on track for a record-setting year of 120. to make matters worse and length of blackouts and number of consumers are impacting. the consumers are victims. programing gets pulled by broadcasters and monthly bills go up. i have increasings concern some broadcasters are coordinating negotiating with each other and colluding rates they demand from video distributors like dish. the american television alliance a coalition whose membership encompasses cable, satellite and telco providers independent programmers public interest groups and in which dish is a member, is unified in calling for changes to the outdated retransmission consent rules as

part of the s.t.e.l.a. reauthorization. we and many others in the industry propose among other things when local television is pulled from consumer due to retransmission consent dispute. video distributors should provide another market network signal. the broadcaster sig noll imported would be compensated an the distance signal royalty rate. this reform will at least allow consumers to keep network programing while negotiations continue. if the broadcasters local content is as valuable as they assert the imported distant network signal is poor substitute. both parties continue to have every incentive to reach an agreement. i am r position a distant signal during a blackout simply fills the void for network programing. second americans living in remote, underserved areas especially benefited from s.t.e.l.a. and its predecessors. among other things s.t.e.l.a. allows americans residing in predominantly require areas to missing signals in the big four stations in the market. the distance signal sunsets in

2014. without reauthorization, 1 1/2 million american households be disenfranchised. since the last reauthorization the video industry is not sitting still. they want to watch consumer, sports entertainment on the go. increasing high resolution screens available on smartphones and tablets. over the year dish has done much to respond to changing consumer preference. they make significant investment in the wireless market to satiate consumers growing demand for flexibility and consuming video. in summary we believe the government should work to insure laws mirrored today's competitive realities, consumer expectations and advances in technology. thank you, i look forward to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. dodge. mr. walden. i commend you as well illuminating light, mr. dodge. pressure on you. >> good morning chairman, ranking member watt, ranking

member conyers. i'm i'm partner of covington burring. i'm testifying on more than one half free local over-the-air television of national association of broadcasters. as the committee begins review of s.t.e.l.a. your broadcast constituents urge to you keep in mind two principles. first, free, locally focused broadcast television should remain available to american households. sercs your review of s.t.e.l.a. should not be used to create new exceptions to copyright law that undermined the contractual relationships between broadcasters and satellite or cable companies that enable broadcasters local focus. why is localism so important? for broadcasters, local system coverage of local news, severe weather and emergency alerts, school closing, high school sports, local elections and public affairs. local system support for charities civic organization and

events that help create a sense of community. our broadcast stations are the way local business educate and inform the public about the goods and services and in turn, create jobs and support your economy. there is no doubt viewers continue to rely on our service. broadcast television remains unique, it is free, it is local and it is always on even when other forms of communications may fail. the committee substitute committee should decide about the expiring license continues to promote localism. distance signal served its purpose in 1988 when the backyard satellite industry was just getting started. it served its purpose again when dish and directv first launched small receiver services in the mid 1990s. but in 2013, when dish and

direct tv are two of the largest free pay tv providers in the country the distance signal license is a vestige of a bygone era. today over 98% of all u.s. television households view the local network affiliates by satellite. that number is growing all the time. no public policy justifies treating satellite subscribers in local markets as unserved. that with would provide viewers of the locally. there are no technical reasons for failing to serve all markets. accordingly the subcommittee should encourage localism and consider whether section 119 license should expire. in reexamining s.t.e.l.a. you're likely to hear from those seeking enactment of new exceptions to the copyright laws that would undermined broadcaster retransmission consent rights. let me be clear.

arguements of broadcasters too much leverage and retransmission consent process or retransmission fees are directly responsiblfor rising cable bills are wrong. local broadcasters and pay tv providers both have incentive to complete retransmission consent negotiations. and for that simple reason, they always do. before any disruption to viewers occurs. there are exceptions but they are rare and in fact, carriage disruption from retransmission consent impasses represent 1/100 of 1:00% of all annual u.s. television viewing hours. put that another way, consumers are 20 times more likely to lose television programing service because of a power outage than because of a retransmission consent impasse. furthermore, in the small number of instances where these negotiations resulted in disruptions to consumers there

is one distinct pattern, time warner cable, directv and dish. since 2012 these three companies alone have been party to 89% of all the disruptions nationwide. in contrast to what some suggest, nev -- nab demonstrated across numerous economic studies retransmission consent payments are not responsible high pricing pay tv prices. 2 cents of every cable tv dollar gross to broadcast retransmission fees. that is true, despite the fact during the 2011 season, 96 of the top 100 most watched prime time programs were on broadcast television. lastly, the committee should understand that retransmission consent negotiations are about more than just fees. increasingly, these negotiations include hard discussions how we distribute content across variety of new platforms like

hulu that promote competition. in conclusion, they urge you to rebuff calls from the pay tv industry to expand narrow examination of stella to give them unfair advantage in market based negotiations. thank you for your time. appreciate your questions. >> thank you, mr. waldron. mr. mackenzie. >> thank you. shentel offers -- >> you're mic is not on. >> sorry. good morning, shentel offers wireline and wireless services to residential and business customers in smaller markets in rural areas in the mid-atlantic region. as a smaller rural provider our costs per subscriber are greater. however despite the higher costs firms like shentel still provide our customers with the same service enjoyed by urban customers. it's a challenge that's not made any easier by certain laws and rule that govern our business. for example, one of the simplest issues i raise for the committee today is the competitive disparity that stems from the fact that certain laws governing

satellite tv industry are reauthorized every five years. the cable industry does not benefit from such periodic review. in fact congress hasn't made a broad legislative change to the cable rules since the 1990s. if congress was to conduct such a review. one set of rules that worked and should not be changed is cable copyright license. it continues to serve its goal in compensating copyright holders for the retransmission of their work. many stakeholders agree no significant change to the license is necessary if congress were to repeal the license it would be very burdensome for cable firms to anticipate all copyright firms that need be before aired on broadcast stations. it would create uncertainty in the marketplace for us and our customers. should congress reach a different conclusion, any change to the existing license must coincide with reforms to the broadcast carriage rules such as

retransmission consent because they are legally intertwined. there are a number of specific problems related to the outdated rules and regulations governing the cable industry, particularly retransmission consent that are covered in my written testimony but with limited time i will focus on just two that are direct relevance to the judiciary committee. this committee should be aware that there are dozens of instances where separately owned, big four broadcasters in the same market are colluding against the cable operator with their next, retransmission consent. typically this means that two broadcast stations with exclusive market rights that are protected by the government use the same negotiator to conduct the negotiations. available evidence shows this anticompetitive conduct by broadcasters raises fees between 22 and 160%. in the end these costs are passed on to the consumer. the practice of coordinating

retransmission consent negotiations iswide spread, occurred in at least 20% of the tv station markets and it is increasing. this year there has been a number of broadcast station mergers and acquisitions that could result in even more coordination of retransmission consent negotiations. if you share my concerns, please inform the department of justice. another area that i would like the committee to consider are skyrocketing sport programing fees. it's amazing in the past few years, sports leagues have extracted more than $110 billion from broadcast and cable tv networks and there is no end in sight. these networks bid extraordinary amounts because they can pass those costs on to the pay tv providers and our customers. not surprisingly, espn, regional sports networks and the big four broadcasters are aggressively hiking their fees. in the end the consumer shoulders these costs. one part of sports programing

problem is rooted in a 50-year-old federal law giving an antitrust exemption to professional sports leagues when they're negotiating their tv programing deals. however, like retransmission consent, sports programing market has changed significantly since jfk was president. but the rules have not. it makes sense to, may have made sense to give professional sports leagues a pass from the antitrust rules in 1961 their dominant market power no longer justifies this exemption. mr. chairman, it's clear that there's a host of issues that need attention. given the significant changes in the marketplace, i hope the issues i've raised here will be taken into consideration as part of the committee's reauthorization of the satellite tv license. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, mr. mackenzie. mr. campbell? >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member watt, chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers. appreciate you giving centurylink the opportunity to

testify before the subcommittee as relatively new entrant into the video marketplace. i would echo mr. dodge's testimony centurylink is not seeking to avoid reasonable costs for acquisition of broadcast content. rather we seek a fair set of rules which it can not be unfairly leveraged against consumers and new entrants like us. give you a little background, centurylink is the third largest telecommunications company in the united states offering voice, video and date to over 14 million homes in 37 states and businesses in all 50 states and select national markets. we offer cyber security solutions to the federal government and multiple state and local governments. as a result of our recent acquisition of savis we're actually one of the largest cloud computing and hosting companies in the world. only recently over the past five years have we gotten involved in the competitive video market, launching a fully digital iptv product and in multiple markets including orlando, las vegas,

phoenix, and central north carolina. and i'll tell you, consumers benefit from robust competition in the form of better service quality, in the form of more innovation, more investment, and ultimately lower rates but unfortunately the costs of obtaining broadcast content has threatened consumers ability to get i in of these benefits. the current regulatory regime was created in an environment where the federal lawmakers were concerned about market abuse from monopoly incumbent cable operators. as a result over the years lawmakers have kind of skewed the regulatory advantages towards broadcasters, vis-a-vis their relationship with pay tv providers in multiple ways. for example, one, a local broadcaster because of tie-down arrangements can force feed unwanted content to providers regardless of consumer demand. two, a provider has no other alternative to obtain this

content in most of these markets. and third the fcc's application and interpretation of the good faith standard has rendered it really meaningless giving de facto power to the broadcasters in retransmission consent negotiations. in addition, the regulatory regime has been stated did not contemplate the explosion of video competition from a myriad of industries. cable, incumbent cable company, or cable operators no longer have a monopoly in the market. and while the current rules create problems for the larger companies, they impose additional burdens on new entrants like centurylink. every customer we get had a relationship with another provider before they come to us. we have to win every single customer we sign up. that's capital intensive, it's tough sledding and, for that reason we can't simply just take whatever the broadcasters demands are. and in the case of a blackout, i know that broadcasters used this

more frequently, there's little harm to the broadcasters if the signal is lost but tremendous amount of harm to a company like centurylink as we try to provide competitive service. and unfortunately the retransmission consent fees are providing a windfall not to the local stations but to national networks. the original intent of these rules were to provide a safety net for true local stations. it's not the case anymore. "snl" kagan projects retransmission fees will increase to $6.1 billion in 2018, up from 2.4 billion in 2012. that is a 250% increase. that's all at the expense of consumers. congress has an opportunity as part of the s.t.e.l.a. rethor race to reform and rebalance the renegotiation process regarding the retransmission consent marketplace. the reason congress conferred significant regulatory advantage to the broadcasters no longer exists. centurylink favor as deregulatory approach where our

consumers could receive national content from adjacent or alternate markets during the pendency of negotiations should they break down. this is good for two reasons. one, it rebalances the negotiation process where both parties have a little bit more leverage at the table, and two, most importantly, it does not punish consumers for two providers failure to reach an agreement. at the end of the day it is not about winners and losers. it is about protecting consumers who bear the biggest brunt of this regulatory problem and insuring the future of a competitive marketplace in the video marketplace. again, i thank you again for the opportunity to testify. we look forward to working with the committee and try and enact and enable consumer oriented legislative rerecall to. thank you. >> thank you, mr. campbell. mr. garrett. >> thank you, mr. chairman coble, ranking member watt. thanks for the opportunity to testify on behalf of major league baseball this morning. let me surprise that testimony with three brief points.

first baseball has a major stake in any revision of copyright laws that affect television programing including the cable and satellite compulsory licenses. baseball and its member clubs are copyright owners of substantial amount of very entertaining, very valuable television programing. we now offer their fans access to approximately 5,000 copyrighted telecasts of major league baseball games each year. i do not believe there is any single copyright owner that provides the american public with more television programing than major league baseball. second, the vast overwhelming majority of baseball's telecasts are provided to cable and satellite subscribers pursuant to licenses negotiated in a free marketplace and not pursuant to compulsory licensing. there is simply no reason that sat late carriers or cable systems or anyone else require a compulsory license to provide major league baseball telecasts

or any other broadcast television programing. satellite carriers and cable systems negotiate every day in the free marketplace to offer hundreds of channels, 10 of thousands of hours of non-broadcast television programing. we believe that they can do the same to offer broadcast programing including telecasts of baseball games. third and finally, if congress nevertheless chooses to reauthorize the section 119 compulsory license, baseball has one simple request, and that is, adopt a mechanism to insure that satellite carriers and cable systems at the very least pay fair market value for their compulsory licenses. according to the fcc cable systems der require more than $67 billion in revenues by selling access to video programing. compulsory licensing royalties amount to less than one half of 1% of those revenues.

one half of 1% for what is undoubtedly the most valuable, the most watched of all programing cable systems offer. satellite carriers also pay less than one half of 1% of their revenues for their compulsory license. their video revenues amount to approximately 30 sick billion dollars. their compulsory licensing royalties in 2012 amounted to approximately $87 million, $10 million less when congress last renewed the section 119 license. the current sat right royalty rates are in fact the same as the rate a independent panel of arbitrators to determinedded to be fair market value in 1997, 16 years ago. there is simply no justification for requiring copyright owners to subsidize with the low market royalty rates the major corporate entities that dominate the cable and satellite industries. baseball believes congress

should authorize the copyright board to set rates for the carriage of all broadcast programing under the cable and satellite compulsory licenses and that the copyright royalty board also should be authorized to adjust those rates periodically so that they continue to provide fair market compensation to copyright owners. thank you, mr. chairman and looo working with you and your subcommittee on this important matter. >> thank you, mr. garrett. mr. patton. >> chairman coble, ranking member watt, chairman goodlatte, ranking conyers, my name is preston patton. i appear today on my own behalf and sadly, no one is paying me to be here. [laughter] i am so old that i am one of the few living souls who has been around for the entire history of this issue and i'm here today to implore you not to just kick the ca the road again. it is long past time to repeal the satellite and cable compulsory licenses and rube

goldberg-like statutory regulatory system that surrounds as the former president ever the abc tell television network. world will continue to spin, consumers will have access to tv and all industry sectors will continue to thrive without the compulsory licenses, without associated fcc rules and without retransmission consent. in 1976 when the cable industry was in its infancy, congress granted cable an extraordinary exception from normal copyright principles, a compulsory copyright license to distribute programs on broadcast tv channels. the fcc adopted rules including network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity to limit the market disruption caused by the new compulsory license.

in 1988 the compulsory license was extended to satellite. then in 1992, congress enacted retransmission consent requiring a marketplace negotiation between broadcast tv stations and cable and satellite distributors a negotiation that is functionnal equivalent of negotiation that would have been required if the compulsory licenses had never been enacted in the first place. when other argue compulsory licenses are essential consider this. every day, hundreds of non-broadcast tv channels, channels like discovery, history channel, usa network, bravo, hbo get distributed to nearly every man, women and child in america without any compulsory license and without retransmission consent. they get distributed because the channel owner and the cable and satellite systems have an old-fashioned, simple copyright

negotiation. there is absolutely no reason why the broadcast channels can not be distributed in exactly the same way. when the satellite license was adopted in 1988 you provide ad sunset, an expressed the expectation that the license would be temporary and would be replaced by market negotiations. instead, the license has been renewed four times. when you renewed it in 2004 you directed the register of copyrights to study the continued need for compulsory licensing. in 2008 the register released that study calling the cable and satellite compulsory licenses, and i quote, arcane, antiquated, complicated, and dysfunctional, not exactly a ringing endorsement. when you renewed the satellite license again in 2010, you directed the register of copyrights to prepare a more specific report to congress.

proposing mechanisms and methods for the faceout and eventual repeal of the cable and satellite compulsory licenses and you asked the register to propose marketplace alternatives. the register issued that report in 2011, concluding the compulsory license are, and i quote again, a artificial construct created in an earlier era. the register further recommended that congress set a date specific trigger to phase out and ultimately repeal the licenses. i want to close with what i think are three simple truths. first, compulsory licensing is just not necessary in these markets. second, broadcast channels like non-broadcast channels absolutely deserve to be paid by the cable and satellite distributors who want to sell their programing to consumers. and lastly, local broadcast channels are no more a monopoly than are the non-broadcast channels like amc, time time war

cable sports net, bravo and discovery. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. padden. i want to thank you the witnesses for your timely testimony today, staying wing the five minute rule. we try to apply the five-minute rule to ourselves as well. so if you can be terse in your answer we would be appreciative to you for that. mr. garrett, how is major league baseball working to make its content available to americans in new ways with advanced technology? >> mr. chairman, as i indicated in my testimony major league baseball currently offers approximately 5,000 telecasts of its games to consumers each season. that is virtually every single game that is played during the course of the season is made available to their, to major league baseball's fans. they do it in a variety of ways. they have done it over national broadcast television networks such as fox. they do it over a myriad of

local broadcast stations and regional sports networks throughout the country. they do it over several cable networks including espn, tbs, major league baseball network. they make it available, a number of these programs available via out of market packages that are carried by cable systems and satellite carriers to almost 67 million households across the united states. and finally they also make it available via their very successful, award-winning mlb.tv app which makes all of these telecasts available to anyone with internet-connected device, over 350 devices. >> thank you, sir. mr. dodge, for our constituents, what issues, on what issues should they be asking the congress to place its focus upon? >> if there's one issue that is top of mind for dish, that the

retransmission concept system today is broken. it is not a free market. in every local market around the country, you know, in the old days when cable in its infancy you had one broadcaster who would negotiate with one cable company and somewhat symbiotic relationship or mutually assured tee instruction depending how you look at it and that one broadcaster places three or four distributors off against each other and consumers are caught in the cross-hairs who are hurt panned having prices go up year after year. >> thank you, sir. mr. padden, i think you touched on this. in your opinion what would be the result if section 119 license simply expires? which i think is some december of next year. >> my recommendation is that congress provide a short transition period to allow the broadcast industry to get its rights in order and then, repeal all of these licenses and all

that would happen is the broadcast programing would get distributed exactly the same way the non-broadcast programing is distributed today, through a simple negotiation between the cable and satellite companies on the one hand and local station on the other hand, with the station acting as a rights aggregator just as the non-broadcast channels do today. >> i still have time. anybody else want to weigh in on that? >> sure. i think what mr. padden suggests is very similar to a bill that's been proposed by representative scalise over at energy and come mears committee and it's certainly one potential option, very worthy of debate and you know, we're just thrilled at dish there does appear to be recognition there is a problem and there should be such a debate. >> if i may add, i think section 119 license expiring, this committee could advance the debate by actually getting a number as to how many people would be affected. so i would suggest that the

committee ask the satellite carriers to submit a certified number as to how many people today are getting distant signal. in if the past we heard 1%, we heard one million but we do not know what the number is. i think if the committee would get that information then you would actually have, we could have serious debate about is this distant signal license worthwhile to extend for this small number of people? there may be hardship cases. there may be special circumstances which justify it but right now we're all in a blind alley. >> time for one more comment. >> well, in response to that i would say, it is true that there are less and less folks who are actually availing themselves of the distant network signal license today but it's a very important group of rural and underserved americans and for example, in short markets like glendive, montana, that doesn't have a abc or fox affiliate. what the distant network signal license allows us to do import those stations network programing for folks who have no

access to that. >> we would have happy to have a conversation about short markets and areas where there is spot beam problem but we do not know what the nature of it is. that would actually be a helpful step in promoting legislation. >> how many people use it, mr. dodge? >> the estimates i've heard are one-to-one 1/2 million consumers. >> i see my amber light appear. i now recognize the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as become my policy i decided to defer until the end of the process. so i will defer to mr. conyers and go last in the chain. >> thank you very much. could i begin our discussion, and i thank you for the variety of views presented but, do you believe, mr. dodge and

mr. padden, that congress should do more than simply reauthorize the distant signal license? either one can start off. >> i'm happy to go first. as i've said, i think this is one government program that you can retire. it was enacted, these licenses were enacted before there were any non-broadcast channels. they only apply to the programing on the broadcast channels and you now have hundreds of other channels distributed nationwide with no muss, no fuss, through normal copyright negotiations and think that proves that you don't need these licenses anymore for the broadcast programing. >> to address that specific point i believe there is a difference between cable channels and the local broadcasters. the chief difference being the local broadcasters received at

least initially billions of dollars of spectrum for free under the promise they would be stewards of that spectrum and use it for the public good and they're further propped up by rules as must carry, exclusivity and network non-duplication that the cable channels don't have benefit of. to your specific question, ranking member, conyers, we think the satellite act should be reauthorized so that the current beneficiaries are not disenfranchised and further, we think there are two reasonable zones of expansion, that should be considered. one of which is fixing the broken retransmission concept system as it stands today and other is fixing the orphan county problem that at least in my case, every time around this year the folks in two southwest counties in colorado start asking the question why they can't watch the broncos. the reason is because they're in the albuquerque dma. >> well, mr. dodge and mr. padden, do i, sense that there is a little space between both your responses?

[laughter] >> yes, although we are good friends. >> we're all friends here. >> ranking member conyers, this committee asked the expert agency, register of copyrights, to study these licenses and their report said, and again i'll quote, that there they're arcane, antiquated, complicated and dysfunctional. i can't imagine why you would want to continue such a program. >> now, i'm going to i have but another chance, mr. dodge. what are the targeted fixes that the american television alliance, atva, is calling for through the retransmission consent rules as part of the s.t.e.l.a. reauthorization? >> well, principally there are two. the first of which is, one that we favor, which is, allowing

video providers to import a distant signal on a interim basis during the pendency of retransmission disputes and broadcaster takes down the programing. the other some form of standstill where the programing stays up and the parties would enter binding baseball-style arbitration to reach a fair rate. but in each of those cases the consumers would still have access to the programing and theoretically, the broadcasters in first instance would still have an incentive to negotiate as would the tv provider because the distant signal is an imperfect solution. >> would you add to that mr. waldron? >> absolutely, sir. thank you. i think it is clear there are thousands of cable systems in america. there are thousands of broadcasters in america. and the vast majority of time the system works, there is a marketplace settlement. there are marketplace negotiations. the fact is, as i mentioned in my testimony, there have been an

increase in disruptions and they all involve three companies, directv, dish, and time warner. we see this frankly as a manufactured crisis. they have, they are deliberately going and playing the game and frankly in order to get this committee to pay attention to these issues. so we actually think in the vast majority of cases the system is working and with respect to the suggestion of a standstill, well there's another way of putting that. they get to take my copyright without my permission. that is what a standstill is. i do not want to give them my retransmission consent but yet they get to take it because they were taking it before and i don't want to give it to them anymore. that seems rather contrary to our copyright law tradition. we think that actually would be not something that congress should endorse. >> could i add one thing if. >> yes. >> in evaluating the request being made by the cable and provision, i thinkfor a

you should consider the fact that the cable industry just went to court and successy defeat ad stand still agreement in program access disputes., ifd got rid of the standstill when they didn't want to continue to carry something and now they're back here asking you to enact a standstill against the broadcasters. >> may i? >> mr. campbell, the last comment. >> thank you, ranking member conyers. the companies that, mr. waldron mentioned are very large and we're a new entrant into the market. and, you know, i would suggest that often these larger companies play the negotiations against smaller companies like centurylink trying to compete and win customers over and without any leverage at all we are the ones that are getting kind of swallowed up in this thing and that's going to stifle competition, investment and

innovation. the other thing i would point out is, while the broadcasters often threaten to black out. david: it is unlawful for any provider to not carry signals during sweeps week, which is the week that broadcasters get their ratings and make make their advertising money. that is the one week we can't do. >> mr. chairman, can i get 30 seconds more? mr. dodge -- >> 30 seconds will be granted. >> thank you. i want to address one point made by mr. waldron, 90% of the blackouts are caused by three entities my company included that is a bit in eye of beholder. we would take the view, 100% of the companies are caused by four companies, abc, cbs, fox and their affiliates. not surprising dish, net work tv and 90% of the blackouts because one we represent 50% of the marketplace for pay tv today. other 25% is comcast. owns nbc, arguably conflicted.

other 25% is folks like mr. campbell. in many ways dish, directv, time warner are only folks actually able to negotiate effectively with the broadcasters and thank goodness we're out there fighting for consumers to lower prices. >> thank you chairman coble. >> you're welcome, mr. conyers. distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask you a question on behalf of my constituents. i have a number i hear from who live in a, usually a rural area, a good distance from the markets that they're in and a lot closer to another market that they prefer to receive the broadcast signal from, or the retransmission of that and i wonder if you might just elaborate on that? these are often, lots of people but living in rural areas who are, you know, 75 miles from the d.c. market but, 25 miles from the small harrison market would

rather have the harrison market. >> generally each year there are a few markets which that kind of a situation happens. the dma is what it is. it was created to reflect of viewing of people in that county, so the particular counties that you're talking about, as i said in my testimony, predominance of view something home market that its currently in. again it was, it was developed as a mechanism to define a geography in which television signals are viewed and therefore local advertisers would be able to use local television, support local television. it's -- >> should those lines be adjusted? do you -- >> we have a process. every year we go through and we evaluate the viewing from, for each county within the dma. it is perhaps a little bit conservative in that you've got to have a statistically significant change two years in a row before we move the county over but the reason for that is,

the need for stability in the marketplace overall on advertisers behalf. there are always better ways of doing things. we generally treat these situations on a case-by-case basis. we also meet with congressman within their district, there's, an issue, and we describe what the numbers are. and so, it's, it's a system upon which almost $40 billion worth of advertising has been very successful for the last 50 years. >> let me interrupt you. i want to ask a couple other questions that are broader nature. before i do that, i want to ask mr. garrett, if he wants to respond to mr. mackenzie's suggestion that the sports broadcast antitrust exception should be eliminated. >> mr. chairman, actually i don't have a response. there is nobody who comes to me and asks for advice on antitrust laws. my focus is on copyright law and what is good copyright policy and -- >> in light of that i will cut

you short then and ask if you, work with and people who might have that subject? >> absolutely. >> if they would submit that to the chairman of the committee in writing, i would be pleased if the chairman would share that answer with me when it arrives. >> absolutely. >> let me ask all the members of panel, what is the proper role for congress to marketplace disputes? should congress set general guidelines for the marketplace follow or set detailed requirements all participants must follow, and as ad junk to that, are ways for businesses to be resolved without disrupting consumers relied upon satellite and cable services for accesses to video content? and, mr. donato i gave awe shot. start with mr. dodge, we'll work our way down and if time we'll get back to you. >> i will take the question, two ways to avoid consumers disrupt

ed, allow signal during mechanism for a standstill and i have to say not all that familiar with the niceties of what standstills have and haven't been struck down over the time but the fact of matter if the broadcasters will sit here and wrap themselves in localism as justification for 99% of what they're saying why do they want to take the signal down and disenfranchise consumers at these times? leave the signal up. we're not saying we will not pay during these periods. we have gladly will but don't disenfranchise consumers. >> keep moving. limited time. >> two points. one is that congress actually, i think wisely decided in 1992 to essentially have the marketplace settle these issues. and secondly, where there are problems, frankly, consumers should have more choice. so it is sometimes difficult to change your provider. there were reports, news reports that people wanted to change the time warner but nobody was answering the phone. and there are cancellation penalties and like. so that actually would enhance the marketplace competition.

>> mr. mackenzie? >> i think our position is that -- >> hit the button. >> excuse me. our position is general guidelines would be better than specific guidelines. mr. dodge come up with two ideas, the distant signal and also kind of preventing blackouts. distant signal really doesn't work for the cable industry because we don't already have that content. satellite industry has the content and quickly move it. for us it would be building five and trying to get it off which would be impossible. from our standpoint, preventing blackout by leaving signal on while we negotiate would be preferrable. >> mr. campbell? >> not to repeat what's been said i agree with mr. dodge and mr. mackenzie but -- >> hit the button too. >> it is not on? i apologize. to return the negotiations to actual free market negotiations. we hear a lot about the thumb on the scale in favor of one party over the other. we don't seek to have the thumb put on the scale in our favor. we just rather have it removed from the other side so that the

negotiations do become once again free market negotiations because the world's changed a lot since '92. >> thank you. mr. garrett? >> major league baseball's standpoint they license a great deal of programming that they want their consumers and want their fans to see. and they're as frustrated as anyone either on congress or fans themselves. when the program something not made available. having said that recognize broadcasters have property rights in those signals. we believe the best way to determine value of copyrights is free market negotiations. that is the objective we in baseball have, is to have free marketplace negotiations or the very least, fair value market compensation for programing being utilized. >> thank you, mr. padden. >> gentleman's time to expire. mr. padden, you may respond. >> if i would like to respond briefly to the question to nielsen about the dma this an

example of the dysfunction that is built into the compulsory license and associated fcc rules. in a free market, if you have constituents who want to see station a, and station a would like con sit weapons to see it, and there's a distributor between them that would like to make money distributing it, they can figure it out. all the non-broadcast channels get distributed anywhere someone wants to see them. the problem is the compulsory license and associated fcc rules actually enshrined nielsen's rating data from 1972 as the basis for what signals can go where. they're still sitting in the fcc rules, 19712 ratings data. if you would just get a big broom and sweep all of this stuff away, the free market could better serve your constituents. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair.

mr. dodge, i understand that while you, in fact you said earlier that one-to-one 1/2 million households in the united states currently get their access to broadcast stations through the distant signal service but it's clear that the number of households that are dependent on the distant signal decreases every time congress looks into reauthorizing section 119. can you tell us who these remaining one-to-one 1/2 million households are and where they are located? are they mostly located in rural areas or either concentrated in certain parts of the country? >> generally located in rural and underserved areas. there is really four categories if you will of consumers. folks in short markets, who are folks as glendive, montana, missing fox and abc we're allowed to import those network affiliates into those markets. outside the spot beam of our satellites. if you think of utah for example, which is rectangle, spot beams are generally round.

law allows us to provide distant signals to folks not covered by our spot beams and commercial trucks and rv are covered by the distant signal license. directv, we're in all 210 markets. so we don't actually make use of the quote, traditional unserved household exceptional louing distant signal import but directv does because there are 15 markets where they don't provide local service. they have grandfathered subscribers as well i believe. >> do we have the technology now to close the gap, to them? >> for example, there is the short market issue is purely the fact there are no affiliates after particular network in those markets. and with respect to outside of the spot beam, it just, it depends own the, whether or not the satellite beam is large enough to actually cover an entire dma, which it's not in all cases but it is very, very limited when it is not.

>> okay. mr. waldron, i'm aware that today consumers have several options for how they'll view video content. they can access content through pay tv carriers or options through the internet. no doubt the online model will continue to grow in coming years. to what extent should we consider newer platforms as we reauthorize satellite tv laws? should we consider them at all? >> they can inform the debate because they show how the tv market is evolving and let me also say we talked earlier about the conflict between cbs and time warner cable. a significant participate of that dispute was about the ability for cbs to offer its programing to a competitor to time warner cable. i understand why time warner cable doesn't want cbs to make its programing available to hulu or netflix or amazon instant video but, cbs actually is interested in doing that to give

consumers choice. so you should be aware that is actually increasingly a matter of the negotiations. it is not necessarily the which news reports said was a deal cut relatively early in the process but in fact enabling broadcasters to actually have, giving consumers choice across these different platforms. >> well, in fact the digital rights of content are playing a more important role in these retransmission negotiations. how do you think the issue of digital rights will impact future negotiations and does congress have a role protecting consumers in this regard? >> i think congress should actually say, if it has, copyright owners should be able to negotiate a agreement across all of their content of the as i said i think the cbs example is tilling in that cbs wants to actually promote competition. so that is why think actually went about those negotiations and we think that actually it is a way that consumers can give choices. i do want to come back to a

statement mr. dodge said. we don't dispute there are some hard cases out there such as the short market situation or the corners of spot beams but we don't know how many there are. and mr. dodge is one of two. so he said earlier he's heard 1.5 million. he in fact should have the information that is needed and directv has the other half. not like you have to survey a 1,000 companies in order to get this data. what we would like to do is get, what is the number and what is the context. how many are rvs. how many are in short markets. how many are spot beam problems. as dish is proven there is no technology to, that there should be unserved household. so i dish is in one or 100% of all the markets. >> and can you address the issue of localism, the principle that is embedded in our nation's communication laws? can you tell us how the law developed and to focus on localism an some benefits holding on to that principle?

>> just quickly. localism goes back to the original broadcast licenses embedded in the communications act of 1934. it is notion that broadcasters should meet needs of local community. that makes american broadcasting unique around the world. there are national broadcast systems in europe and asia. we have locally focused broadcast system. the reason we have concerns with the distant signal, it undermines the localism. that local broadcast who is bringing lowell locale car dealership or loc spoals, if you are getting a signal in from new york or l.a. you're not going to be aware in moore, oklahoma about the tornado that is coming. localism is the heart of the broadcast and also i a heart of the, of the satellite laws and we think that actually is a strong argument why the committee should be skeptical a distant signal license is still needed. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady. the gentleman from texas.

>> thank you very much and having grown up as a broadcaster working in radio since i was 15 years old, i kind of grew up with the public interest convenience and necessity standard and i certainly have a great deal of sympathy for the local broadcasters and, i want to ask mr. dodge and maybe mr. mackenzie, if we take away or limit the local tv stations leverage with respect to negotiating a programing license by allowing distant, distant signals, what leverage are they going to have in the negotiations? >> well, if you believe what they say, localism is important as it is, then the distant signal is a imperfect solution. all it will do is ensure folks continue to be able to watch "american idol" but won't be getting their local news. >> so, what if, i do think that's important, mr. waldron, maybe you can tell me some of the benefits that we're getting. i can't believe jim cantorry is

going to give me better hurricane information than the weathercaster we call dead wrong dale affectionately in corpus christie? >> that is exactly right. we understand the market. we understand that people are actually tuning in on a daily basis for their "american idol" or for their cbs or nbc hit show but what the tornado comes suddenly there there will be an outcry. i don't think you want to say where is that local station the day after the tornado hits. so that is the point. local system about being there and serving the community all the time and yes, many, much of the viewing is tuning in for -- >> okay. so, i have got limited time. so, mr. mackenzie, can you tell me, go ahead, did you want to answer this? >> i would. the american cable association primarily very small cable providers. often times we're at the edge of

a dma. >> right. >> so i will use my system as an example. we are in the county which is in the washington, d.c. dma. you can not get off air in our area. we have to have that brought in by fiber to do so. i can tell you there are no local sports. there are no local but i can get that from a distant station which is only 30 miles away. >> talk about section 119. if we do away with the requirements of local or incentives for local stations to get on, or the requirements do we end up with network affiliate super stations where it is's the station in new york or chicago or l.a. that everyone gets? then how does the local car dealer advertise? you know, or whatever business there is in the local community? candidate for congress. >> our view that is absolutely what would happen. the easiest thing for the carriers to do would be to make an arrangement with new york and chicago and l.a. and draw that

we would have a national broadcast system which is how some other countries do it. that is not the american system. that is the not, it is not the case that would actually give a platform for the car dealers or the movie theaters or -- >> i'm sorry i have limited time. mr. dodge -- >> can i say? >> sure. >> why shouldn't consumers in that case? sounds like mr. waldron is proving case localism knit that important? >> is it much cheaper to use less land width and resources on satellite, have one national? you do away with all the spot beams and all that and have one station and it is actually cheaper for to you broadcast one affiliate rather than several 100? >> it certainly would be but the fact the matter we broadcast locals in all 210 markets. we made the decision we want to be in there all we're saying to protect consumers from takedowns allow us to temporarily import a distant signal. that is not the endgame. >> would another option than the ones you suggest, you stay up, go under whatever agreement is

eventually reached? wouldn't that be -- >> of course. >> mr. dodge, we talk about these areas, these million or so -- >> designated market areas. >> we talk about the million or so people who aren't served by anybody. can we, is there a way we set it up where they just rather than, even with the dm ams, we set it up to the ones that is most rationally close to the dma. . .

. >> congress is still going to be tipping the scales in favor of one party or the other, either by keeping licenses are by striking them. why is walking away altogether their system? >> i think the best way to explain it is like at first you gave cable i'll say cable and satellite compulsory license for the programs on broadcast stations. then as part of that deal, the fcc adopted rules that restrict cable and satellites the use of that compulsory license.

and then in 92, congress enacted retransmission consent which requires a marketplace negotiation between the station and the cable and satellite people. so you ended up at the same place you would be, name and marketplace negotiation, if you have done nothing, except you've got a bunch of regulatory warts that you develop along the way, like the fact that the 72 rules are still in the fcc rules. all i'm saying is, it's a ruth goldberg system. it's a complex way to do something simple, and it really is a chance come for once, to say here's a government program that each little step made sense when we did it by the end result is nonsensical so we're going to back out of it. >> mr. dodge, let's talk about regulatory warts for a second. i assume you would have, you would be in some disagreement

without proposal but i'm hoping that you can walk us through the process, the process that dish undertakes negotiate with local broadcasters can what makes that more difficult for companies perspective than negotiating with the non-broadcast stations that he also thousand the mall as exactly how this should now work? as you point out those negotiations all take place without any congressional interference at all. why is there a difference? is it more difficult and if so, why? >> it is more difficult because you have these small, 210 small monopoly territories, if you will, where the this one local broadcaster who, as mr. waldron a search, has this valuable local content that is irreplaceable that no one else can re-create. and that one broadcaster gets to play three, if not for distributes off each other. and oftentimes you get to the point of negotiation where they're asking for 400% increase and they said okay, i guess we

will not get there. i'm just going to take the signal down and call up your competitors until my consumers to go switch to them. and the problem is the broadcaster might lose that for 30 days, dish has lost -- >> can go that in more detail when you say they're playing several off one another? can you give us some examples? how does that work? what is it that you would see have been? >> so in some cases the broadcasters will literally call up or start running advertising in the paper saying, you know, crawling, putting into their signal that you're about to lose your signal from dish network. please call directv or comcast. they are advertising in the local papers and as mr. waldron says, maybe it's a small amount to go to take down. what he doesn't account for is the our numbers of these we did get to 11th our negotiation but the consumers have been bombarded for weeks if not a

month with all these advertisements and messages across the bottom of the screen saying the sky is falling, you better switch now. there's a huge disenfranchisement of consumers even if it doesn't go down. >> let's take his statement, swap out the word hbo for broadcaster. hbo doesn't want to reach a deal with the local cable company. hbo is going to pull back program. hbo's going to run an advertising that says you don't want conjoined watch hbo? go to directv because dish doesn't have hbo. what is so remarkable about this? is a marketplace negotiations. to your point, congressman, what is different about this as mr. padden said with every other sort of broadcaster? the answer is congress depends on hbo and dish and directv to have series negotiations and to do with a marketplace. that's the same exact thing going on here. >> and if i may, --

>> fifteen seconds to say you're the difference. >> are the other movie channels? yes, there are. are there subsidy program? yes, there is. let me substitute in what he said. i guess local is and isn't that important. we should be able to import new york because it's not that important what's going on in denver. he can't talk out of both sides of his mouth. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the distinction showman from florida. >> mr. mackenzie, go ahead. >> i think the big difference between directv and dish and members of the american cable association are relative to suspect we are very small providers. normally on average less than 5000 subscribers. when we start our retransmission discussions with the broadcasters, it's after they've already negotiate with the big companies in the dma. when we try to make negotiation on numerous occasions, i fast

could we have a most favored nation clause in her contract to make sure we are being treated fairly compared to the others in the marketplace, and i've never been able to get that index i think there's a huge difference between a negotiation between a directv and dish and broadcasters and the small cable operators. >> great. i just wanted to give you a chance. this is my first time going around with us. i'm a freshman but it is really interesting to see, i'm listening to a major league baseball testimony and i'm one of the youngest members of congress yet i remember watching 100 games about, we have tbs and florida tbs for the braves, wg and for the cubs, although the white sox and we did get some other games but those are the people i followed and now when it first came out when espn started covering cable you start to get more and it was the internet our member when mlb tv cannot you could actually watch games at work people thought -- you can do it on your devices. it's unbelievable.

i think the technology is great but i wonder about the lost productivity in the american workforce, but i guess that's just a discussion for another time. someone who's new to this, i would just like for you to say, we're here, a lot of people think congress, they've got to solve the problems of the american public, and that's nice to say but it obscures the fact we create a lot of problems here through the years and i've seen that in other areas. somebody who is new looking at this, what would you say is kind of something that congress has created, a problem with this that we should look to rectify, probably i know where mr. padden will go but can you start? >> one perfect example is the compulsory license that you enacted gives cable systems the right to carry stations that are deemed significantly viewed in the county. based on a list of ratings from 1972 that is enshrined in fcc rules, and if the station wants to get carried commenting,

somewhere else, and the constituents there want to see it, the station has to petition the fcc to amend the list is inevitably duty stations so they can be carried to there. it's crazy. i mean, if you simply rely on the free market and there's people who want to see the station, the station wants to be seen, they will figure out how to get it done. >> mr. garrett? >> there are probably several answers i could give. the one that would focus on for major league baseball is the fact that energies like -- nnt select major league baseball and others are forced to subsidize competition $100 billion industry by providing them with a role market program pursuant to the compulsory license. you mentioned in every -- baseball programming that you can se now, the book of that program is made available through negotiated licenses through marketplace negotiation.

we think the same could be true of the program is not a fable during compulsory licensing but if compulsory licensing continued at the very least we should have fair market value paid for the programming statement committing industry but what is the dollar loss in major league baseball? have you looked -- >> i don't know the answer to that. it's not a question of dashing its question of talking about, what's fair and reasonable and that marketplace compensation, marketplace value is what we've all lived with in this industry. >> thank you. mr. campbell? >> congressman, thank you. conceptually i think the biggest problem is the rules that are currently in place don't recognize what the market looks like today. and is ever-changing and ever evolving. i think the biggest thing that congress could do would make sure the rules are in place that encourage innovation and investment and competition. and we are dealing with

companies that have been there for ever, and i think consumers benefit the most by having companies like going into a major market, invest the capital and compete. i think the rules in place would tend to stifle that. so i think conceptually that's what congress should take a look at. >> good. mr. mackenzie? >> well, small rural carriers are the ones of bringing broadband to america which i know is a priority for everyone, but oftentimes the rules and regulations -- i think one of the things it should look at is changes in the rules, or when the rules are being looked at how it impacts the small providers. >> i'm out of time but for the rest of you gentlemen would like to sit something i would certainly love to hear your views as well, so thank you for coming. >> thank the gentleman from florida. the distinguished lady from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and our witnesses today, appreciate your time. and it's been helpful to me coming from los angeles and having just experienced a blackout which again i thought

was specific to our area and didn't really realize how widespread this was, or why this happens. so i just had a couple of questions for you. and one of which is, do you worry that polling consumers into these escalating negotiations between cable or satellite and broadcasters mean that more people are going to opt out a pay-tv? and whether or not these would have a harmful effect on content creators whose shows are distribute on cable and satellite? and that's for anybody. >> can i make one point? i want to emphasize that broadcaster is a free over the air service. so join the so-called blackout the service was available 100% of the time but i realize that some people might not have intended or some people might have reception problems. i do want to emphasize speed so i couldn't seem cbs if i had ravaged? >> absolutely, absolutely. it was available over the air during the entire time, and,

indeed, the reports released in the new york market that there was a run on antennas at radioshack. site you want to emphasize that the signal is always on and always out. they may not be available in the cable system and we realized that but it was available during that. >> i take a bit of an issue with that because i don't think the broadcasters actually build out terrestrial signal to the entire dma. survey not in every dma. i think it depends on where you live in los angeles us what he could get the signal. >> i see. i don't think people knew that. and i doubt whether there was a run on rabbit ears in l.a. >> shame on broadcasters not building out their entire dma dmas. >> okay. >> from a paid provider perspective, it's not free. >> okay. second question is, many local broadcast stations play an important role in providing local news, weather and emergency information in particular to communities they serve. i know that we all agree that viewers shouldn't be deprived of

local information, especially during emergency. specific of want to ask what steps can congress take to ensure that our constituents don't get caught in the middle of these commercial disputes, particularly when whether or other emergency information is taking place? >> if there is a dispute that consumers should be able to change providers. so there should be a cancellation fee and, frankly, there should be a rebate if they're denied service. so the consumers have -- >> that's not that easy to deal. i mean, if you just want to cancel right in the middle of a dispute. go ahead, i'm sorry. >> it's not easy to do but that is a choice that consumers can have in addition to getting the signal over there. and by the way, it's free to anyone who has antennas but you can also pay for tv but it is free for anyone who has an antenna. >> representing the antenna company. >> can i address the point about refund and cancellation fees?

our view of the world is today, it's an unfair fight as it stands. one broadcaster who pays -- who plays all-district there's often each other. you have to refund and wave termination fees in these cases when, quite frankly, the fact there are blackouts are the exact reason why our disclosure to consumers under contract are crystal clear that programs are subject to change because we cannot ever get the we will provide any local broadcaster signal because there's a constant threat of takedowns. >> what anybody else like response because yes. i think the proposal we put forward that during the disputes, the signal remains up while the negotiations are going on. therefore, the consumer will not be harmed. once the negotiations are completed, then the fees are paid retroactively. when no one is really disturbed or harmed by that, and it allows the consumer to continued of service during that period of

time. >> okay. anyone else? thank you. >> i would just repeat that mr. mackenzie's industry just went to court to defeat the standstill agreement in the context of the program access, and for them to now come in and say they would like in this instance i think is unusually the pleasures even by washington standards. >> would you like to respond to that, mr. mackenzie? >> my company and the companies of the aca were not involved in that suit, so that's, the large cable operators maybe but not the small cable operators. >> okay, thank you. >> the distinguished german from louisiana. >> -- gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for having the committee meeting today. let me just start with i guess i

shall a little favoritism and start with mr. campbell from centurylink. i guess my question to you would be, looking at most of your new subscribers and the fact that they are probably new to the internet, and look at the air where you all are located, which if you go right down the street towards monroe under title i of the poorest places in the country that it's consistently been that way. the fact that your new customers are coming in and taking video along with internet access, what kind of effect is that having in the area? >> congressman, thank you for the question. it's had a great effect, not only for our subscribers who take the beta product but for those who choose not to. as we upgrade their networks in these markets that we entered, we are offering broadband speeds that range from 25-40 megabits.

so even those folks we can't sign up for the video product may not want it, everyone else is getting enhanced broadband. so really the benefits from the video perspective is great because it allows us to compete with incumbent cable operator and offer a video product. but from a broadband perspective we expected to be even greater. >> from a price point power you all with the traditional video providers and cable providers? >> traditionally in the marketst with entity, we obviously enter lower than they do. what we've seen is some slow down in price increases from the incumbent cable operator, although that hasn't, it may slow down increases. they still introduce the prices and is still a problem, generally our prices are lower. >> well, let me just say that

many local broadcast stations play an important role in providing local news, weather and emergency information to the king of these they serve. however, -- communities they serve. a pay-tv subscription and, therefore, depend on cable satellite or other video provider to offset program. and as we mark the anniversary of 9/11, i believe that we all agree that viewers should not be deprived of local information during emergencies, regardless of how retransmission is proceeding. i mentioned 9/11, but, of course, in louisiana and in a very we have to worry about hurricanes and tornadoes and other things. so i would be interested whether the panelists would comment on their views as to whether it is a fair negotiating tactic to threaten blackouts given viewers are then at the risk of missing

emergency information, what steps can we take to ensure that our constituents don't get caught up in that fight, particularly when whether and other disasters may play a part? and anyone can start. >> we don't think it's fair for consumers to be put i in the position especially given that the broadcasters received at least initially billions of dollars of spectrum for free under the premise that they would be stewards of that for the public good. with all due respect to mr. waldron, i don't think thank you, folks, just to use an antenna is in 100% satisfactory solution because the broadcasters don't cover the entire dmas with a broadcast level. >> the vast majority of the thousands of broadcasters and the thousands of cable companies reach deals. so for your constituents and investment your constituents, as i said in my opening statement, one 1/100th of 1% of all viewing hours were lost to destruction last year.

you were 20 times more likely to lugers was because of a power outage than you are because of retransmission. so broadcasters have every commitment to reach the deals in the marketplace and in the vast majority of times those deals are reached and constituents continue to get their service. >> congressman, as you know, our company is deep and rich history being a local rural communications provider, and we absolutely embrace localism. the issue of the perspective, negotiations at the mr. dodge mentioned in negotiations are not quite local as these to be. we were dealing with a local station in the colorado springs market, it might be a better ber nutrition process that we're dealing with syndicates that on 30, 40, 50 markets that play them against each other. they die in all of this, you know, nonlocal content into the agreement ends a take it or

else. that's kind of the issue from the video perspective. in utopia if they were local and it work worked the way mr. waldn said, i don't disagree but it doesn't work that way. >> i see my time has expired. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the distinguished gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be a. this is one of those issues that my staff and others have said, this is just a terribly collocated issued, and i began reading about this last weekend i felt like i was back in law school. i call seminary cemetery. and reading a paragraph in having to reread it four or five times. and say what exactly is being said? you made a great point. this is just chaotic. then i been listening today, and what i come back to is having a great joy of serving georgia's ninth congressional district, the mountains, the start of the appalachian trail, very urban,

very well. is what i hear lost? the people are not in this room paid to be your? and that is my constituents back home, because really could care less about the complexity of it. they wanted to be able to get their news, to watch a new tv and watch new programming. and sometimes the complacency of what i've seen today as more of fighting for battles and our market share then ending up the bottom line is the person would actually serve. this is some the questions i want to take that first. mr. donato, you answered arguments ago and i'm going to assume that it was sort of off-the-cuff but you said, the dma is what it is. almost implying like nielsen, we are because we are instead you doing what we do but you don't always have to be the. we can change that. and then we can get, there can be other ways to look at dmas and going fo for for eventuallyi would like for you to explain the process in which nielsen decides to review current boundary and then whether not

northeast georgia is under current consideration. >> currently the process is annually. we if i wait the share of tuning of stations in all markets, and the market for particular county which has the majority of the doing for the largest share, it is too that the market that accounting is assigned. in some cases very large or rural or counties which are on the outskirts of the dma, we will actually split counties and the one part of the count in one market, one part any of the market. >> the safety of becoming issue? you tend to talk about viewership, we talk about safety, hurricanes, tornadoes. the safety ever enter into what you're talking about? splitting a county, i was watching just a few months ago when i had an issue. i did not even see four of my counties on the atlanta area which i'm in gainesville, even listed. i mean, is their safety that ever comes into what you're talking a? >> the dma is entirely based on

viewing, so it's speed is i appreciate that. we have something going to cover. so these gentlemen have talked about safety and localism and these kinds of things, but yet what do the dma, safety is not a consideration being taken into account. >> we give them talk about localism and safety. you don't even take into account for dma. spent i guess i would respond this way. so the dma is basically set up as a commercial entity so that buyers and sellers of advertising understand the geography of associate with viewing audiences. it's the basis for literally hundreds of millions, billions of dollars of commercial activity, and it really is the thing that has supported local television all a long. it's objective. it's based on your preferences but it's not based on any rules. we frequently talk to

congressman and women when there are issues that arise in terms of someone not seeing a signal and they go to their congressman or woman, and we speak we will talk about that in just a second. >> we basically handle them one at a time and try to demonstrate wide they are where they are. we sometimes listen to the. this is the reason why we began to split a county. if it does appear as if a county really goes, part goes to one market, part of the county goes to know the market in terms of the viewer preferences. >> i think that is a false distention but really i think what's happening here is where talking on two different levels. when we deal with this dma issue, one part localism and the safety aspect and while we need local broadcasting a while the providers, get into this market and on your angle come you're not even discussing really what some the arguments are being made. so that the concern. i mesa the more record -- questions for the record at a later time. how specifically are broadcasted when to facilitate the availability? as i said before i forgot his.

i would like a commitment from you to work with my office and i know that they have been working there to make sure that we get this question address because he came up in my town hall meeting. people, they understand they did it because we are really in a different dynamic on those four counties, and was split between two smaller markets in which most of them -- can i get a commitment to continue to work with me on those counties that i? >> absolutely. >> okay. the other question you, sort of an overall question, i would be this open. it's not one of bigger but it came to me as i was listening to you and i'm at a time of believe, kunduz i guess will have to cement for the record but i'm not sure why you can't -- and i have 30 seconds? >> thirty-second. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agreed a new times but i read the "washington post." i read the wall street show. i read the advantage of. i read the gainesville times. i get much information from all the. why could not have my local broadcasting and the los angeles

affiliate if i wanted to? and i'm not setting myself up so anyone in the audience has -- i'm just asking an honest question with the way things have developed. shouldn't the question be, either or? not either or and the and? >> times expire. you may answer. >> i mean, i think the argument is exclusive territories are, it disappeared let's say if you're a car dealership, that's what local broadcast to compare the cbs outlet if you oversee this affiliates in gainesville or atlanta. they are that outlet. if you bring in another cbs station then you have defeated the exclusivity that the broadcaster negotiated for. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank the gentleman. the gentlelady from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for being here today. and continuing as with more questions.

i wanted to start with mr. padden. you haven't talked about localism at all, and which are proposal how that would impact access to local information. >> again, i'm just suggesting to you that marketplace forces would be a better servant of consumers interests. if there's program, their interest in whether it's local pro ramming or something from somewhere else, and you live to the market and i there's money o be made providing the program to them, they will get it. overwhelming majority of the viewing is to local broadcast stations because of the overwhelming interest in the local news and weather and sports and in a free market system that would continue. go to actually know diminish and in that at all. i mean, why you would want to continue as a system that is based on the nielsen ratings

from 1972 to decide who gets to watch what, i don't understand it. >> and with new technology today, the internet, people are getting a lot of local information even when they're not at home, many of us when my hair are still staying connected at home and getting local information in other ways because with people traveling around a lot and they're not always in their local area but they still want news that's happening from home. so given the development of new technologies and the different consumer behavior in terms of access to content, and making sure that we, given that we have legislation from 1988 and nielsen ratings an earlier, how do we make sure that we put together policy that doesn't inhibit innovation or change going forward, as we look at what we should do here in the next step? as a kind of a broad question for everyone, but we want to make sure that whatever we do addresses issues that consumers

have today but also doesn't block innovative new entrants that may also want to compete in this space. >> i would like to answer that action. so we measure viewing television online. we've made an announcement, a very competent technical problem and measuring, we've made an announcement that we -- starting the end of next year viewership on tablets also be included in the ratings. i suppose my point is, we've got a measurement solutions. the business relationships are very, very competent and i wouldn't comment. i would live to my fellow panelists to comment on them but we do have measurement solutions worked out. >> if i could comment on the 1972 nielsen data point, i think one thing that is missing from the record is that although theoretically it can change on viewership and viewership is what is measure them by there's only one signal that the bill in the dma. when you check the dealership

you will get the same local affiliate over and over and over again. and in southwest colorado which is a dimension ends in the albuquerque dma, we propose to provide both albuquerque and denver to the folks in those two counties and not the consumers decide. so when mr. donato's firm calls him up and says i'm watching albuquerque and lo and behold maybe the broadcasters are right. people down there preferred to buy the shovel is in albuquerque. some people may say i'm watching denver. ultimately, it's a vote of the people. >> i said it before but don't understand the 1972 comment. every year we'd evaluate and that's the basis on which dmas are constructed. >> i wasn't just focus on 1972. i'm kind of focus on the speed of legislation and that, you know, the way people are viewing the way the industry changes more quickly sometimes than legislation does. so how do we make sure we put together legislation that doesn't inhibit that innovation? >> if i could come back to your original question. technology is exciting because

with swing bucks and other technologies watch abc.com you can use the internet technologies even when you're in washington, d.c. and with the cbs station with time warner, an important part of that was the online digital rights. so that cbs could make the programming available to hulu, netflix anybody else picks of the technology is actually expanding opportunities to access your local broadcaster. >> if i could respond just briefly, you're right, new technology is great and all kinds wonderful opportunities. unfortunately, the compulsory license that you're giving to the cable industry and the satellite industry, you have not given to the online industry. so, for example, you do the rights, broadcast programming, the comcast and to directv, but you don't give it to netflix. i don't understand why.

i'm not advocating that you give it to netflix, but i'm advocating is you undo the license you have given to cable and satellite that currently puts online distributors at a disadvantage. we are a party, the training as a part of the number of international treaties that prohibit compulsory license to your television programming to online providers and the only way you can level the playing field is by repeating the license for cable and satellite. >> my time has expired, so thank you mr. gibbet i yield back. >> the distinguished gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all let me apologize for having to leave early. this is one of those days where all the three committees on which i serve our meeting and currently, some having to shift around but also, i may be covering some subjects have already been covered, and i apologize for that but i would like to address a couple of questions to the panelists

today. first question to mr. dodge, mr. waldron and mr. mackenzie come and visit it is this. temporary compulsory license has been extended new ruble times by congress, and my question is, how well is it working for television viewers? and ifill it ought to be reauthorized for another five years? mr. dodge. >> i would say it's working wonderfully as result of the last reauthorization, dishes not providing local channels to all 210 dmas. >> mr. waldron? >> with respect to the local channels, it might surprise you i agree completely with mr. dodge. we think the local compulsory license do work. i disagree with my friend, preston padden on that. that. >> mr. mackenzie speaks we will go three in a row. >> no surprise. okay, thank you. next question is for mr. garrett, mr. padden and mr. dodge. and it is this. what alternatives exist to the

compulsory license? with those alternatives adequately protect the rights of copyright holders? mr. garrett. >> the copyright office address the very question in report to be prepared for congress here. they talked about the different types of direct licensing, sublicensing and collective licensing. and the report lays it out in excellent detail here. the one thing i would mention is just the actual history here of what's happened with wtbs for example. i have had the privilege of being present i think that everyone of the rings the subcommittee has held on this issue since the late 1970s. when i go back i think about the years where people would debate about making the tbs avail and can only be done on the compulsory licensing. in fact what happens in 1990 is

wtbs converted to a cable network, and today it's available in virtually every cable subscriber, not pursuant to compulsory licensing but pursuant to free marketplace negotiated agreements. including agreements that major league baseball has and has kept a package of programming and tbs or so beers and will through the year 2021. >> mr. padden? >> there are plenty of markopolos alternatives that would be far more appropriate and fair to copyright owners and a government system where government boards set the rate. >> we believe the compulsory licenses to stoken and have utility, and part of the race is what mr. padden noted in his written testament, which is to this day the broadcaster still have not cleared copyrights to the in all instances. that's the magic of the compulsory license actually. >> i think you offer testimony.

yield back. >> the distinguished gentleman from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think the distinguished ranking member as well. seems to me that many of the disputes over the last several years that have in some instances unfortunately resulted in a temporary blackout in ability for consumers, some of whom i represent back home in brooklyn and parts of queens, to get content. all seem to occur in and around significant sporting events. the most recently in the run up to the start of the football season, there was a conflict that was resolved on the eve of the football season, thankfully. in the past, back at home there was a conflict that prevented some consumers from seeing part of the early yankees run through

particular playoff season, and wound up resolving itself. there was a conflict at home that centered around the building for some people to see msg which broadcast the new york knicks. they're off to a terrible start so nobody cared your and then jeremy lin came on the scene and he became a big problem. and it totally resolved itself, that there's a lot of conflicts, not all exclusively, that a lot of you seem to have interesting timing as it relates to major sporting events. so i was very interested in mr. mackenzie's observations as it relates the sports licensing fees. i believe you testified that sort of these transmission fees have been skyrocketing in recent times, is that correct? >> [inaudible] spent i think you also indicated that as a result,

consumers are hurt as result of the increase in exports transmission fees, is that right? >> yes. >> could you elaborate on that thing in terms of how exactly you think the consumers are hurt by increase in licensing fees connected to espn or some of the other sports content? >> will for instance, espn as supported by s&l, the cost of that channel alone is $5.50, and that is a channel that is required to be carried out the basic tier. so whether you are a sports fan or not, you're having to pay for espn. when you look at the sports programming that's on the cable channels and on the broadcast channels, the amount of the program cost i can be attributed to sports, and i don't have an exact number, but the estimateue

expense it is now, who requires espn to be carried at the basic? >> that's part of the negotiations that you have with disney. they will only allow you to carry espn if you put on the lowest tier. >> okay. you also mention in your testimony that you thought that the antitrust exemption that exists perhaps should be revisited because of the dominant marketshare that exists with the major sports league, correct? >> in 1920 oh but there's an antitrust exemption granted blanket to major league baseball and your reference legislation at this congress passed in 1961. if we were to revisit the antitrust exemption and adjustments were to be make him recognizing there's a difference between baseball and the other major sports leagues, how do you think that could impact the landscape in a manner that was favorable towards consumers? >> i think that what you have

rather than one entity negotiate on behalf of the entire league, you would have individual teams negotiating in the local market. i think that that would allow for more competition and probably lower costs. >> would you comment on that, mr. garrett? >> congressman come as a indicated earlier, very few people would want to what i have to say about antitrust policies and antitrust laws. what i would, my focus on the copyright side, but what i will say is that with the sports broadcasting act, that it is among other things responsible for what you and the american public will be able to see the world series on fox this year. it is that while which gives the commissioner of baseball, gives the nfl and other leagues the ability to pull together right and make available to the american public the kind of programming that is now made available.

i think the law has worked well. has not been abused, and it is one of the reasons why today i can come here and say to you that everyone of the approximately 5000 games played in major league baseball, ma i'm sorry, 5000 telecasts of games in major league baseball is available in one fashion or another to your constituents and to all consumers. >> thank you. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman. the distinguished lady from texas is recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i think all of us are a expressing appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member, our counters have caused us to be delayed in one instance, homeland to get a committee was discussing syria. and i might add that the combination of gentlemen that are before us, content and that there is providers have helped to contribute to america's education on this very important issue. so we are here for more than

just a separation of powers as to who has what, who gets to be regulated, but to be up to thank you for how you contribute to the public discourse on some very vital issues. we are engaged in this regulatory discussion because congress in its wisdom thought that to regulate both the content and the providers in order to create more robust competition, which i think is vital, and particularly the responsibility of the judiciary committee are on issue of competition. and i might add that there's merit in everyone's position as i've been able to glean as i sat here, and certainly to the national broadcasters, i just want to be historic in my reflection on the old days of the black and white television with that antenna we did provide content of joy to those communities that could get a

television, and all that day was to plug it in to the socket. so we have common to a new posture that for me was a very difficult change, because they had to now pay for something that they had been able to plug-in and receive some form of content. but in the wisdom of the congress and the unabated miss of technology, we have all come to live together with the new access that consumers have. in the course of that, i want to raise a number of questions. all of us i think are many members have expressed certainly the concern of the issue of blackouts and how it impacts not so much the two entities that are having a disagreement. i heard someone say that that's only a minute percentage that occurs, but if it occurs at all it's a difficult shot for many of us who deal with our constituents. with all due respect in

reflection, the customer will be calling the satellite company or they will be calling the cable company, and they will not be calling the entity that has the content. we have to find a balance with that. because there are concerned that this would be a growing problem and so i'm going to be posting a generic question to start out with and i would appreciate those who would answer it, do so. and i might have missed it, so this is just a plan comes to question. do we expect of these content conflicts coming up over and over again? and is the way that the industry will look to solve those kinds of concerns? we know what the issues are. the issues are on the content, you are providing to get legitimate content you have to pay. are the ways to handle it in a preferable way than to see what congress tried to regulate and balance to protect the content, rightly o, and also to give

competition? that's one question. the other question is, should the upcoming reauthorization include a discussion of other issues related to satellite cable and the big four broadcasters? and what you think they should be? or do you think, again to those who'd want to answer that, it should be simply a clean reauthorization. the judiciary committee has its jurisdiction and others have theirs. specifically the mr. dodge on dish network, are the court matters or court shavers, those who do not subscribe to -- reduce the scope of the ability, are they of concern to the dish network? and if congress does not reauthorize section 119 compulsory license, how extensive are burdensome with that before you? can you answer the other questions about getting a resolution on how you debate this question going forward and then the reauthorization

question? >> sure. you and your first -- >> this is for everyone. why don't you wait on the question i specifically asked you to respond. others on the comment, please. >> yes, i think something can be done to resolve this. what we need to do is look at the rules that are currently in place that are slanted in favor of the broadcasters that were created at a time when the broadcasters were facing issues with incoming operators. and now the shield has turned into a sword. and so if some of those issues were removed, network, non-duplication, syndicated, then i think you it's a much more balanced negotiation process. we have incentive to get local channels, local news channels to our consumers, and i think broadcasters have the incentive as well. but the problem is so much of the national content is tied to it. it were able to carry that i think integrations be more

balanced. >> mr. dodge? >> i was a to answer your first question, is this problem going away for lack of a better term, the proof is in the numbers but in 2010 there were 10 local blackouts come in 2011 there 20e roughly 50. last year there were rough 100 now we're on track to set a record of 120 which is not a record i think any of us be happy to get. with respect to question on whether cord cutters were a concern for dish, the answer is no. we welcome the competition. we need to find a way ourselves to actually evolve and participate in that. >> anyone else? >> if i may. [inaudible] >> i'll give you one more minute. >> broadcaster support a clean reauthorization of stela, and the passenger of -- with your opening comment, still today you get a tv and and and and and

plug it in and get tv for free. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your intelligence and thank you. i look forward to talking to you all individually. thank you very much. >> the distinguished gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the chair for convening this hearing, and all of the witnesses for participating. it's been a delightful, free flowing discussion. it's been great to see mr. dodge and mr. waldron seated next to each other going toe to toe. and i'll always benefit, since i started going last in the series of questioning on our side, from what has taken place. because as always, one comment that kind of pops up in the whole discussion that hits my mind, and the comment today came

from mr. dodge, when you look at mr. waldron and said, you can talk out of both sides of your mouth -- you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. and my thought was, most of us in all of the industries, is my experience can have talked out of both sides of their mouth, depending on what's beneficial to their particular industry. but i did note that it was particularly applicable to the broadcasters, because i've been a strong advocate for people being paid for their intellectual property. and for that reason, i've been a strong advocate of your ability to negotiate for payment for your products. i think that's very important.

what i have not been able to reconcile, however, is how you apply different standard to the people who provide copyright on copyrighted material on the radio, the performers. and i just don't understand that dichotomy. and so i'm hopeful that you all will maybe come around on the radio side to the same position that you hold on, when you own the protected material. understand that there are performers out there that own the protected material that they produce, and they deserve to be

paid also. so i'm not going to belabor that, although i would note that it seems to me to be unfair for you all to take the position that there is some kind of reform its tax when the government gets no part of the performance rights, revenue. yet, there is no performance tax when you get paid for what you have the copyright to. so i hope you all will help a reconcile that. won't do here in public, but it is a concern that i have, and i

think these are inordinately difficult issues. i kind of come down closer probably to where mr. padden does then most people. we probably would be better off to get the government out of the way, not only in this context but in the performance rights context, too. and so it won't be a surprise to anybody because i announced it at a hearing right before the break that i was introducing a bill to do away with the compulsory license of music. but to make sure that if a performer, if you play a performance of music -- a performer's music, that you compensate them and go and work out a deal with them, if that's what you want to do.

i'm kind of free market on a lot of this stuff, mr. padden, and i was particularly appreciative that your testimony was the last testimony. and so, i think -- i thank all of you for being here. i won't miss a show ask a question unless mr. waldron wants to respond to what i didn't intended it personal attack on nab, because i started out by saying we all are self-serving and talk out of both sides of our mouths. i think that's characteristic of all of us at one time or another. i just use your industry as an example, as mr. dodge did. i thought his comment was appropriate. >> we look forward to the present conversation. probably best in private.

don't accept all the user but we can continue this conversation. >> we have continued those conversations on a local and national level, and they've always been cordial and congenial, so as you all said, you and mr. dodge and mr. waldron our good friends, and mr. dodge and mr. padden our good friends. all of us are good friends. we don't always agree on every issue. mr. chairman, before you close the record, the notion picture association of america -- the motion picture association of america has requested we submit this info graphic illustrating the continued rapid online viewing options for audiences or the record. so i would ask unanimous consent that we make this a part of the record. i'm not even sure what it is. [laughter] i'm in complete agreement that

anything that will help us make good decisions ought to be part of the record. >> without objection. >> so i ask unanimous consent to submit. >> i won't hold you harmless to the. we will accept that without objection. i thank the gentleman. i want to thank those of you who have been in attendance for the entire hearing. your interest is more than just casual. i particularly want to thank the witnesses. you have contributed significantly to a very complex and the very important issue, and we may meet again. but it's been a pleasure having you all with us. today's hearing is now concluded. without objection, all members while five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses are additional materials for the record. this hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> while the u.s the u.s. senats about to capital and on this ninth day of the month of september, they will begin the morning with a moment of silence in remembrance of the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. we will -- we will take a pause while the diplomatic community works on an alternate plan to secure serious chemical weapons arsenal. and now live to the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are our rock, our fortress and our deliverer, for we find refuge in your sovereign leading. on this 12th anniversary